It is not for the scientific researcher to question the possible repercussions that they may receive for their technological advances, it is their job to explore the boundaries of science to their full and break down the walls of our complicated and still largely understood world. Many would and do argue that research for example into genetic engineering is completely wrong and that scientists should not “play God”. However activities such as stem-cell research are allowing scientists to explore avenues which may have never been thought imaginable, such as the ability that healthy tissue could be regenerated for humans2 (New Scientist, 2007).
However even when the results of crucial research just begin to reveal the possibilities for the future health and well-being of the human race, they are often branded as “morally unacceptable” and “a form of cannibalism” 3 (Prof. Jack Scarisbrick, Anti-Abortion group Life, 1998). While the methods used in this particular research – using tissue from aborted foetuses – may fly in the face of deeply-seeded religious and moral views, the clear benefits of the research cannot be reputed and the scientists should be commended for their work. Just because their research is controversial, does not mean that responsibility for these so-called immoral acts should be placed on them when their intention is to benefit the health of people worldwide.
The subject of artificial intelligence is an equally interesting issue, raising concerns that the human race will become less emotional and consequence-based and more contract-based in its ethical reasoning. Since Alan Turing first published research into the issue over fifty years ago in 19504 (Brookshear, 2007, p456), whereby computers could be developed to “think” in a pre-programmed and logical manner similar to humans, there have been many new developments by researchers. Honda has spent twenty years developing its ASIMO humanoid robot5 (Honda Online) in an effort to make machine mimic man, while the HipNav system was developed to assist the welfare and treatment of man by aiding surgeons in the field of crucial hip replacements through the use of 3D visionary and robotically guided controls6 (Carnegie Mellon University website, 1999).
After considering the issues outlined, I believe that responsibility is not something which a scientific researcher should have to take into consideration when conducting their work. The role of the researcher is to make progress in the world of science, whether this is in the field of genetic engineering, artificial intelligence or nuclear power. The overall aim and the common goal of all those connected with this research and experimentation is to ascertain new techniques, directions and in many cases cures for problems that the world face.
There are clear dangers posed by nuclear research and “without skilled nuclear engineers we cannot safely...come up with the best solutions to the problems of managing nuclear waste” 7 (Nuclear Power, EPSRC). And with continuing research, scientists are able to experiment with safer methods of harnessing the sustainable yet potentially dangerous power of nuclear energy. I do not believe the scientists should be responsible for knowledge revealed by their research being placed in the “wrong hands”, and strongly feel that hindering their research will be more damaging than taking steps to prevent abuse of the technology.
With regards to genetic research and the term commonly used “designer babies” 8 (Time, 1999, P1), there is clearly a moral issue with regards to the ability to potentially choose genetic traits in a parent’s unborn child 8 (Time, 1999. P1). The ability, for example, to prevent inherited diseases and conditions from being passed down to a child is of great interest for the health of the human race, and just because some parents would like to choose the sex of their babies 8 (Time, 1999, P2) do not mean that scientists should be held responsible for the actions of few.
Equally with artificial intelligence, continual research I feel is very important although as Prof. Nigel Shadbolt was quoted as say, they should ensure that an off switch of types is built in so that “...the human designers, understand the ethical implications and how we build the override and safety into these systems” 9 (The Naked Scientists, 2007).
Overall I would like to conclude by saying categorically that I do not believe the scientists should be held responsible for their results, or the actions of few in regards to issues on grounds of morality or world safety. The scientists only conduct the crucial research, it is up to the world as to how their work is implemented.
Bibliography
1’Iran to resume nuclear research’, BBC News Online, 03/01/06
2‘Stem cell: From adult to embryo’, Marshall Jesicca, Geddes Linda, New Scientist Online, 06/06/07
3’Anti-abortion groups attack cell technology’, BBC News Online, 06/11/98
4Brookshear, JG. Compute Science: an Overview, Addison Wesley (9e), 2007
5’ASIMO – The World’s Most Advanced Humanoid Robot’, Honda Online, 2007
6’The Centre for MRCAS: HipNav’, Carnegie Mellon University website, 1999
7’Nuclear Power’, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, 2007
8’Designer Babies’, Lemonick Micheal D, Time Magazine Online, 1999
9’Intelligent Items or Malicious Machines? Artificial Intelligence Examined’, The Naked Scientists Science Interviews, 2006
