Anything Goes Scientists to Society: Shut Up and Give Us a Blank Check
Scientists are telling us to mind our own business about issues such as embryonic stem cell research and human cloning. Apparently, in their hubris and arrogance, they believe that only their ideas about ethics matter. From the story: Politicians have been warned not to block scientific inquiry into subjects such as stem cells and embryo research just because there is a difference of opinion on the ethics or morality of the work. An international group of scientists investigating the possible production of artificial sperm and eggs to treat infertile couples said that moral disagreements in society should never be used on their own to stop scientific investigation...
I see. Well, we'll all just shut up, mind our own businesses, and give our betters in the science community--all bow--a blank check both financially and ethically.
The Hinxton consortium, which was formed in 2006 to investigate the ethics and legality of stem cells, yesterday issued its recommendations for how research aimed at creating artificial gametes--sperm and eggs--should proceed. "Societies have the authority to regulate science, and scientists have a responsibility to obey the law. However, policy-makers should refrain from interfering with scientific inquiry unless there is a substantial justification for doing so that reaches beyond disagreements based solely on divergent moral convictions," the consortium said.
Or, better yet, why not tell them to stick it where the sun don't shine. They don't get to decide, we all do. The opinions of scientists on these matters are important. But they are not determinative.
Labels: Scientism. Scientific Hubris.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 11:27 AM
3 Comments
3 Comments:
Interesting article. John Harris has been advocating for germline genetic engineering and same-sex conception for a while now, I think, so it's no surprise he would say that the public shouldn't stop it.
How do you feel about the subject of that article, stem cell derived gametes? I think that they should be allowed if they are intended to replace gametes that that person should have if they were healthy, but they shouldn't be allowed to if the attempt is to change in any way the gametes that a person would have if healthy. It's the difference between medicine and manufacture.
I think the UK will come to the same conclusions, which is why John Harris is upset, it would stop his dreams of taking control of reproduction from the breeders. Isn't it good that the UK is debating this and will probably pass a very much needed law? Shouldn't the US also be passing the same sort of law? If we want to preserve individual conception rights and prevent a eugenic brave new world, we'll need a law. Blog posts won't stop anything.
Here's my suggestion for a law:
It shall be a federal crime to attempt to conceive a human being by any means other than joining a sperm of a human male with an egg of a human female.
Will the "of" be enough to stop modifications? I think it would, especially if we are clear that the intent is to stop genetic modifications. But maybe it would have to be more explicit.
It's alarming how many people are starting to think that germline modification is going to happen no matter what. That shows how bad a job we are doing at calling for a law in this country. So bad that people don't even think it's a possibility. Maybe that's what you're thinking, Wesley? That's a self-fulfilling prophesy. If we started all calling for a law, then it would become possible.
Or, better yet, why not tell them to stick it where the sun don't shine.
While your at it I'll say the same thing to a few Missouri State Representatives.
Missouri passed Amendment 2 to protect federal rights granted by the Bush admin to conduct research using SCNT.
The only reason Amendment 2 even exists is because of hostile state legislation aimed to criminalize scientists who's research is protected by federal laws.
The anti SCNT bills got shot down 6 years in a row in Missouri. That would have left scientist with nothing to decide, just the catholic and pro life blocks determination on what scientist could do.
It did however create the perception that Missouri is a hostile place for science nationally. As a result several scientists refused to relocate to Missouri for these exact reasons, and scientific industry was hampered in Missouri.
These failed bills chiefly backed by the catholic church and Missouri RTL attempted to take total control of the "determinative opinion" and forced the hand of the scientific community to protect its own interest against the hostile zealots in the Missouri congress.
With out the original hostility - Amendment 2 wouldn't have ever been necessary. So hate on science for protecting itself against YOUR belief. But what happened in Missouri is exactly the type of thing scientist are prepared to fight against and more of what you will see in your fight to hi-jack every new technology science develops to use it against anything that doesnt meet your agenda. Progress will continue somewhere in the US regardless, as the next 8 years are looking pretty Democratic. Your battle will become tougher.
I think your efforts to stop scientific progress is wasting energy that might be more effective in other areas of ethical concerns.
Science is answering its own moral questions, that you so abstractly want to credit to Bush. Once question about viability of IPSC are answered most labs will be moving away from SCNT, they just don't need your type railroading them to do it, acting as if these scientists have no moral conviction.
When you allude that George Bush is more concerned about saving peoples lives than the brilliant man and women who have dedicated their lives to researching human genetics and disease I have to laugh in contempt.
DS: I never said Bush was more concerned about saving lives than scientists. I said that scientists don't get to determine the ethics of research by themselves.
The anti cloning forces are hardly limited to the Catholic Church and pro lifers. France, the most secular free country in the world, has outlawed all human cloning. So has Germany, hardly a theocracy. Canada has also outlawed all human cloning--and Canada is San Francisco as a nation. The UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to urge member nations to outlaw all human cloning.
Just an FYI, Dark Swan.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home