Science without ethics

[water]

The president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, Archbishop Rino Fisichella, said science that is for the purpose of experimenting with human life without any ethics “puts itself out of bounds” and lends itself to be suspect of being at the service of those in power rather than of the good of all of humanity.

catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14364

What does he mean by “out of bounds” and “at the service of those in power”?

Thanks!

 

[edwest2]

By “out of bounds,” he is referring to the two ways we, as human beings, determine how something is right or wrong.

For example, is science like embryonic stem cell research destroying life to find cures for diseases? The correct answer is yes - an embryo is a human being. But the answer people are given is no - it’s not a human being, or it’s just a collection of cells without recognizable body parts.

The people who are funding this research are “those in power” who either don’t care that life is being killed because they think it will lead to cures or they actually believe that a bunch of cells is not a person.

They are ignoring facts that can be be proven through natural reason and are violating the natural law.

They violate God given law when they allow the death of human embryos for what they believe is a “greater good.”

Science needs money or science doesn’t get done. But those in power can manipulate science:

hup.harvard.edu/catalog/MCGBEN.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[CHRISTINE77]

By “out of bounds,” he is referring to the two ways we, as human beings, determine how something is right or wrong.

For example, is science like embryonic stem cell research destroying life to find cures for diseases? The correct answer is yes - an embryo is a human being. But the answer people are given is no - it’s not a human being, or it’s just a collection of cells without recognizable body parts.

The people who are funding this research are “those in power” who either don’t care that life is being killed because they think it will lead to cures or they actually believe that a bunch of cells is not a person.

They are ignoring facts that can be be proven through natural reason and are violating the natural law.

They violate God given law when they allow the death of human embryos for what they believe is a “greater good.”

Science needs money or science doesn’t get done. But those in power can manipulate science:

hup.harvard.edu/catalog/MCGBEN.html

Peace,
Ed

I agree. Science seems to be mostly unethical. That’s because people who put thier faith in science generally do not put their faith ins God. It sucks!

 

[Harri_Laaksonen]

I agree. Science seems to be mostly unethical. That’s because people who put thier faith in science generally do not put their faith ins God. It sucks!

Whoa; watch out with the anti-intellectualism. Science without ethics is not good science either.

Most of us who have been educated as scientists also have a high regard for ethics. Many of us are also people of faith and are trying to discover how the universe, including biology works. We are doing what we can not to transgress the borders of ethics.

We who have studied theology as well have made good scientific discoveries in many fields.

It is interesting that it is in the biological sciences that the greatest number of questions arises. This is a challenge for biologists and medical researchers but also for those of us who are concerned with the environment in general be we physicists, chemists, earth scientists, or astronomers.

God is Lord of Science as well.

Harri

 

[edwest2]

Hi Harri,

Is a human embryo a human being?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Harri_Laaksonen]

Hi Harri,

Is a human embryo a human being?
Peace,
Ed

Yes.
The question then becomes one of human rights and their protection. On whom is the onus? Should it be the state, a rather clumsy instrument at best, or on individuals much more attuned to dealing with subtleties.

Can we legislate ethics or are they to be learned? Legislation often results in a reaction of how can I skirt the envelope and if possible evade the law.

The legal issue would boil down more to what is appropriate punishment. I, for one, am not ready to lock up biologists looking at stem cells. It is another one of those issues that the only ones who will gain, at least materially, will be the lawyers.

Ethics is a part of every philosophical system and needs to be learned, not imposed.

Molecular biology has already given us a lot of good things as has DNA research. Am I totally comfortable with genetic modifications for foods? Not completely. Am I for DNA identification of individuals as criminals or victims, Yes. Do I think that insurance companies should be able to access DNA databases to assess one’s insurablity and premium class, No.

I come at the issue as a geologist, and we have enough ethical issues in dealing with environmental degradation.

Like I said science without ethics is bad science and will be proved so.

Harri

 

[RobbyS]

By “out of bounds,” he is referring to the two ways we, as human beings, determine how something is right or wrong.

For example, is science like embryonic stem cell research destroying life to find cures for diseases? The correct answer is yes - an embryo is a human being. But the answer people are given is no - it’s not a human being, or it’s just a collection of cells without recognizable body parts.

The people who are funding this research are “those in power” who either don’t care that life is being killed because they think it will lead to cures or they actually believe that a bunch of cells is not a person.

They are ignoring facts that can be be proven through natural reason and are violating the natural law.

They violate God given law when they allow the death of human embryos for what they believe is a “greater good.”

Science needs money or science doesn’t get done. But those in power can manipulate science:

hup.harvard.edu/catalog/MCGBEN.html

Peace,
Ed

They are ignoring evidence that I find compelling but they don’t.
Or they don’t give a damn about the evidence, they have just decided to go ahead and do it.

 

[edwest2]

Yes.
The question then becomes one of human rights and their protection. On whom is the onus? Should it be the state, a rather clumsy instrument at best, or on individuals much more attuned to dealing with subtleties.

Can we legislate ethics or are they to be learned? Legislation often results in a reaction of how can I skirt the envelope and if possible evade the law.

The legal issue would boil down more to what is appropriate punishment. I, for one, am not ready to lock up biologists looking at stem cells. It is another one of those issues that the only ones who will gain, at least materially, will be the lawyers.

Ethics is a part of every philosophical system and needs to be learned, not imposed.

Molecular biology has already given us a lot of good things as has DNA research. Am I totally comfortable with genetic modifications for foods? Not completely. Am I for DNA identification of individuals as criminals or victims, Yes. Do I think that insurance companies should be able to access DNA databases to assess one’s insurablity and premium class, No.

I come at the issue as a geologist, and we have enough ethical issues in dealing with environmental degradation.

Like I said science without ethics is bad science and will be proved so.

Harri

Ethics are imposed. That is the only way. Parents impose their ethical system on their kids and society imposes ethical standards on its members after everyone agrees to a common framework.

You don’t talk your way out of a situation, you deal with it as it is. For example: Human embryos are human beings. You can’t flatly state - no they’re not.

Peace,
Ed