The boundaries between ethics and science are very controversial. Many scientists have the attitude that they are willing to do anything if it provides for a gain in knowledge.

Authors Avatar

Christine Long

05/09/03

IB Theory of Knowledge

Epps

        The boundaries between ethics and science are very controversial. Many scientists have the attitude that they are willing to do anything if it provides for a gain in knowledge. Others have tried to impose a set of ethical values over the gaining of knowledge. They have attempted to make prior judgments as to what science should or should not do based on attempts to project into the future what the outcome and implications a given of scientific investigation will have for society. Can science function over these constraints? Can negative results that some scientific investigation has on society be avoided by exercising this restraint? Or does science to be conducted properly have to be free to seek knowledge freely, leaving society to deal with consequences only after the fact? Can science be honest and ethical and objective all at the same time?

        In the film Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie, Dr. Edward Teller says of the Hydrogen bomb: “…others didn’t want to do it, but I didn’t care. I was interested in knowledge, knowledge, and more knowledge.”  With this, Teller didn’t care about the affects of the H-bomb; he only cared about the knowledge that he gains from this experimentation. Why is he so apt to gaining knowledge? What usually motivates people to desire the gain of knowledge? Is it all for one’s self-achievement? I surely would think not. What would be the point in gaining knowledge only for you? The objective of science is to further the knowledge of mankind; to understand more how the world works? Why would someone be so apt to gain knowledge about the H-bomb, with the goal of advancing the knowledge of mankind, and at the same time not care about the affects it has on mankind? By the result of some people becoming more knowledgeable, other people are killed and/or suffer severe chronic side affects.         

Join now!

        Growing up, I have always been taught to think about the consequences before I act. Should not this be applied to the aspect of science also? It seems to me that for something that has the goal of bettering and advancing mankind’s understanding and their relationship with the world, that knowingly conducting experiments that may destroy and/or cause severe alterations to mankind is completely hypocritical.  It seems to undermine the purpose of science.

        Can science function as it should under restraints made by ethical values? Can we avoid a potential plethora of Pandora’s boxes that may open up by exercising ...

This is a preview of the whole essay