Moral and Immoral Science Science does not always turn out to be perfect, as seen in the 'Frankenstein' horror, and nor do scientists. It is quite ironic that most scientific investigations have been

Moral and Immoral Science

Science does not always turn out to be perfect, as seen in the ‘Frankenstein’ horror, and nor do scientists. It is quite ironic that most scientific investigations have been God’s gift to humans around the globe for thousands of years. Yet society today still has a tendency to fear immoral experiments, holding scientists responsible for not familiarising people with resulting harms and benefits.

In 1883 an English scientist, Sir Francis Galton, invented the term ‘Eugenics’ meaning good in birth or noble in heredity. Galton encouraged upper class citizens of good health, intelligence and righteous character to breed more, whilst discouraging lower class citizens to do so, seeing them as mentally and physically unfit. The ‘Eugenics’ theory was mal-applied in many countries, which resulted in empowering autocrat political regimes, as was the case during Hitler and the Nazis reign, who doomed the term ‘Eugenics’ by approving many eugenic proposals, such as euthanasia for the incompetent.

George Steiner, a literary critic, disputes facts regarding the legitimacy of such cases. He emphasized the question whether doors to current research are too dangerous to open. Assuming these doors exist, and were to be opened unleashing the truth, such issues may certainly cause disaster to the politics involved and shake the existing distraught relations between people of different social standards and cultures. This could lead to infinite aftereffects. However, if the investigations were to be perfected in all zones, and society was presented with a logical explanation, where social anthropology is considered, then ‘Eugenics’ could be treated diversely.

...

This is a preview of the whole essay

I agree with Lewis Wolpert’s opinion that scientists are citizens with natural duties to society like any other individual is, though asking them to be socially responsible could lead to corrupt usage. In addition to these duties, there are moral responsibilities in confronting the public and ensuring that matters being currently researched are unconcealed, as well as illustrating all implications and utilisations meticulously. For instance, the promotion of ‘Eugenics’ failed to consider public involvement, which was thought to be the scientists’ inexperience of dealing with data. However, in the case of the ‘Atomic Bomb’, Leo Szilard’s reasons for concealing information from the public had another perspective. He believed that his responsibilities as a citizen obliged him to keep his discovery as a secret, knowing that if his findings were broadcasted another nation, such as Germany, could build the Atomic bomb using it in a critical time of war.

Scientists should not always be blamed because they maybe governed by circumstances that surround them, just like Szilard was. When ethical and immoral codes are involved without the knowledge of the public, as ‘Eugenics’ had been , then I believe the blame falls on the scientists themselves, especially when scientific misconduct is involved. However, if experiments are reported accurately and conclusions are offered, then blaming any scientist for unforeseen errors would be unfair. In all aspects of science whether moral or immoral, the decision should be unanimous by both society and politics.

References

Wolpert, L. (1992), ‘Moral and Immoral Science’, The Unnatural Nature of Science (Hardcover).

Webster’s Deluxe Encyclopedia CD-ROM (2003), ‘Eugenics’ and ‘Galton-Sir Francis’, Viewer Version 2.2.

Stevenson, J., BS, MS (1999), ‘Eugenics’, One Life Website,