As a species we've accomplished a lot in the last hundred years, from the creation of the computer to the discovery of many new forms of animalia. What I wonder is, do the ethical boundaries placed upon scientists restrict our ability to create and discover? I've done a little research into cloning, specifically humans. In truth it's not a crazy ppidea and theoritically possible to accomplish with our current tech. However to achieve a viable clone, hundreds if not thousand of fetus and possibly babies would die in the initial stages before corrections can be made to create a proper clone. In reality, the ethical issues in this affair would be numerous and horrorific, many of which science boards won't allow experiments to go through. Now, is it worth breaking the ethical issues to accomplish such a goal? Are ethics holding back our potential or are they the guidelines we must follow?
"Ethics" are incredibly subjective in and of themselves. I'm sure the Chinese government wouldn't mind killing that many fetuses considering they're population problem. So before this thread even starts, I can tell you that no one is ever going to come to a conclusion. But I'll put in my two cents. I believe the death of an innocent child is inexcusable, even it's for the purpose of science. If there's no alternative other than human experimentation before the method could be perfected, it's a science we should abandon.
Woah, that statement about the Chinese is both stereotypical and racist. And this thread is about people's opinions on the topic of ethical issues, not the public concensus that we are all suppose to follow. I don't believe in all ethical issues placed upon us, that restricts our ability to innovate our ideas. If we hadn't these rules in place I would predict that our technology would have advanced at least 10 years ahead. We could have saved many peoples lives through medical advances, isn't that worth some sacrifice?
Like the saying goes, no pain no gain. Ethical issues and science contradict each other nearly 70% of the time, so why not just pull through with an experiment such as this? Even though it'll cost several human lives, it may greatly benefit us in the future. Look at troops fighting for their country, they put everything on the line to dedicate just one thing which is the security of their country.
For me it isn't so much the ethics behind it. I understand that in order to progress we have to make sacrifices and that there will be losses, and whilst I don't feel comfortable with it, I do accept it. That being said if I was told that it would affect me personally or my children, I know I wouldn't be too happy about it, but hey, that is human nature :b However, I think that there are some things that we just shouldn't mess with. Cloning being one of them. I am uncomfortable with people messing around with nature to such an extent, it is something that actually scares me, just how far will we go before we reach a limit? I think that our quest to always expand scientific knowledge is going to be what causes our downfall. Some things are better left alone.
Yes, but they made the choice to do so. If adult people or anyone who could make a CHOICE to put themselves on the line for that, i'd be fine with that. Fetuses don't have a choice in the matter. It's not right.
I am not concerned with ethics of scientific progress; at least, not nearly to the extent that I am concerned with carelessness. Scientific adjustments to sentient life almost always take the form of artificial selection, which when executed carelessly has cost us dearly. Breeding of vicious honey bees with more docile species, in an attempt to create hybrids that were docile but produced more honey, instead created a surplus of bone-dry killer bees. Selection imposed on animals typically used as food has drastically reduced their quality of life. The persistence of disease-causing genes in the populations of developed nations has been protected as much by advancements in medical science as a lack thereof. Similar occurrences can be seen in other scientific disciplines, as well. The bottom line is that we can kill for science, or we can let die against science. And vice-versa. Everything has a price or a sacrifice; the question is which ones we're willing to endure. Science should and does advance in baby steps; this is the entire purpose of ethics advisors and committees that meet to discuss such matters. We must be sure we know what risks we're taking and if we're willing to take them. Ethics hold back our potential, yes, but letting the floodgates loose would be like overclocking your computer without knowing that it will produce an excess of heat that could potentially fry it. Our potential needs to be limited, lest we destroy ourselves outright.
I don't think we'll meet that limit, we'll probably have destroyed ourselves before then. And I guess that old saying is true: Those who increase their knowledge, increase their sorrow. I like it, moderation is key to human life, with the possibility of over indulgenece at every step of our lives, we need to learn that in order to appreciate and live with what we have, we need to moderate it.
