christina mincin :)
SUMMARY
Bioethicist Paul Root Wolpe brings to light how science today focuses on the ability to both manipulate and engineer artificial life-design our evolution. Scientists have not only genetically enhanced animals with certain chemicals in order to make them larger and what not, but have now learned to control certain organs, specifically the brain, with technology, so that humans can control these “robots”. Experiments range from controlling the brains of moths, growing human organs from the bodies of mice, to cloning various species. Paul touches on the single concern of when humanity will draw the line and say enough is enough. Because not only are animal lives involved with these experiments, but now, humans are as well.
QUESTION
They say that the end justifies the means. With science, do the discoveries that benefit and aid humanity justify the experiments done?
I agree with Wolpe that it's time to set some boundaries for what scientists can do; some experiments and tests like "glowing dogs" just seem to be useless because it's not like the experiments will be beneficial to the health of human beings or bring more knowledge to treat human patients. Scientists instead seem like they're having fun playing around with animals, making them grow human organs or glow in the dark.
ReplyDeleteI believe that it is important for science to progress. However, the means must also be looked at. Doing experiments that will save lives is necessary, but making animals glow in the dark seems useless. It is our jobs to balance what we believe is necessary to save lives.
ReplyDeleteIn response to christinas question:
ReplyDeleteI have trouble with that question myself. Initially, i think that there
is no way that the ends justify the means. I believe in being a moral
person no matter the circumstance. If i were to wrestle a plank from a
drowning man in irder to not drown myself i would be morally obligated
to give the plank back even if that means drowning myself. In a science
world not much changes. If an experiment is incredibly harmful than it
should mot be committed no matter the possible result. However, when u
thenthrow in the possibility of a cure for cancer or other diseases
then how can we not do everything we can? There should be a balance,
experiments should be conducted only by voluntary subjects. I do not
think that exploiting animals is right nd using animals in harmful
experiments is not justifiable even if a cure can be discovered.
Great Response:)
DeleteBut what if in order to find the cure for cancer meant testing in extreme ways? Although people do suffer from cancer, not everyone does. So if you were to say that it is okay only okay to permit extreme testing just for cancer, then in a sense, aren't other testing’s okay too? Because although these tests are not relevant and seem unrelated in our environment, maybe to someone else it is extremely useful. also, based on moral, aren’t sacrifices sometimes necessary in order to benefit society? In some ways, I feel that each step me take, regardless of whether it is wrong or right, is a step closer to the truth.
I agree with what Greg is saying that science should be able to progress. And in doing so it benefits humanity. Experiments such as this are not necessary and benefit no one at all. In order for experiments to be justified they must have a positive outcome.
ReplyDelete