Pondering the role of ethics in scientific pursuits over the weekend, I started to consider the issue of global warming and the associated fact that there are costs to scientific progress. Let me first say, I don’t buy totally into the alarmism of global warming, but I do see that there are real consequences to not protecting the environment. In fulfilling the cultural mandate, caring for the condition of the earth is as much our responsibility as is preaching the gospel or defending the life of the unborn.
So how many environmentalists do you think would like us to turn back time, if it was possible, and reassess some of the so-called scientific progress our society has achieved? “Progress” that has increased the speed and efficiency of our society as well as providing great personal conveniences may also be responsible for the damage to the ozone. It isn’t easy being green when the science and ethics find themselves pitted against each other by politicians ill-equipped for ethical reflection and scientists with financial conflicts of interest. Science isn’t neutral, whether the question is environmentalism or biotechnology.
Proponents of embryonic stem cell research believe that scientific progress in biotechnology necessitates unfettered science, and this will outweigh any of the ethical considerations being raised by those who oppose the research. The discipline of ethics plays a role only when the life of the research is at risk of being terminated, not when the life being researched for cures is terminated. As environmentalists and creation-caring individuals wish for a second chance, someday we may also regret the violations against human dignity in the name of scientific progress.
So how many environmentalists do you think would like us to turn back time, if it was possible, and reassess some of the so-called scientific progress our society has achieved? “Progress” that has increased the speed and efficiency of our society as well as providing great personal conveniences may also be responsible for the damage to the ozone. It isn’t easy being green when the science and ethics find themselves pitted against each other by politicians ill-equipped for ethical reflection and scientists with financial conflicts of interest. Science isn’t neutral, whether the question is environmentalism or biotechnology.
Proponents of embryonic stem cell research believe that scientific progress in biotechnology necessitates unfettered science, and this will outweigh any of the ethical considerations being raised by those who oppose the research. The discipline of ethics plays a role only when the life of the research is at risk of being terminated, not when the life being researched for cures is terminated. As environmentalists and creation-caring individuals wish for a second chance, someday we may also regret the violations against human dignity in the name of scientific progress.
1 comment:
Hi Sarah - thought provoking post.
So how many environmentalists do you think would like us to turn back time, if it was possible, and reassess some of the so-called scientific progress our society has achieved?
Some do, but not evryone concerned aboutthe environment would call themselves an "environmentalist", and not everyone wants to turn back the clock. I would say that there are those who want to use science for some alternative means that are not ecologically damaging. Nothing wrong with that - that is part of progress too.
One thing that came across to me from reading your poat is that you use the term "scientific progress" quite generically, but science is a collection of disciplines. Logically, just because the field involving ESCR contains unethical proponents and practice doesn't mean that every scientist in every other field is also going to be unethical or pursuing unethical research. And I think it is inaccurate to hold all of science - a generic descriptive term - responsible for what ocurs in one field that is unrelated to other fields.
As an analogy - I can't stand rap music, but I don't hold a Classical musicians, or jazz musicians, or some pop musicians responsible for rap music. And I don't say the progress of music is all negative just because one genre is. Neither do I suggest we should all go back to Baroque and stick with that. :-)
I would say critique what happens in the specific field. Otherwise the generalisation doesn't hold.
Post a Comment