First, I think that it is
important to point out the difference between science and technology. Indeed, technology
isn’t science. Reliable scientific knowledge is value-free and has no moral or
ethical value. Science tells us how the world is. Scientific discoveries are
neither good nor bad. Dangers and ethical issues only arise when science is
applied as a technology. Science
generates ideas about how the world works, whereas the ideas in technology
result in usable objects. However, scientists are obviously involved in the
application of their discoveries. That’s why in an article in Science magazine, Sir Joseph Rotblat (1908-2005)
proposed a “Hippocratic Oath” for scientists. The Nobel Peace Prize winner was
strongly opposed to the idea that science is neutral and that scientists are
not to be blamed for its misapplication; he proposed the oath: “I promise to
work for a better world, where science and technology are used in socially
responsible ways (…)”. Rotblat did not want to seperate scientific knowledge
and its applications. But, surely, the very purpose of science is that it is
not possible to predict what is going to be discovered or how these discoveries
could be applied? Indeed, scientists cannot easily predict the technological and
social implications of their research; it can lead to a cure for a disease as
much as to the creation of a deadly
weapon. Therefore the question is: who is best placed to say if a discovery and
its possible technological application are ethical or not?
Let us consider the example
of gene therapy, an experimental technique that uses genes to treat or prevent
disease. In the future, this technique may allow doctors to treat a disorder by
inserting a gene into a patient’s cells instead of using drugs or surgery. On
what moral ground prenatal diagnosis and gene therapy should be refused to
parents who want to avoid having a severely disabled baby? So far, embryology
and genetics have not harmed anyone, so what dangers does genetics and embryo
research raise? In fact, gene therapy is frightening because of eugenics.
Indeed, people think that if we pursue this research, in a few years we might be
able to select a baby’s physical and psychological features, leading to a “brave
new world” of clone-like beings. However, according to Axel Khan, a geneticist
and philosopher, it is pure fantasy to think that people will prefer to see
doctors and undergo a myriad of tests and exams to have a child when they can be
spared the medical expense and have offspring the natural way.
So, scientific research can
lead to dilemmas. That’s why qualified people have to make the right decisions
and make sure that the applications of scientific discovery are not dangerous.
Today, such decisions are up to politicians. As John Carey, an English Professor
at Oxford, has said: science is a sphere of knowledge and understanding,
politics is a sphere of opinion. He goes on to point out that politics depends
on rhetoric, opinion, and conflict. It also aims to coerce people. Ultimately,
science is all about consensus as to how the world works. However, political
decisions are inevitably influenced by money, economic interests, companies,
lobbies and other factors. To my mind, scientific research per se is not the issue here, but rather more the fact that nobody
is really in a position to judge, in a neutral way, if a discovery should be
applied. I think that we should not give up the possibility of doing something
for the greater good thanks to science just because we could also do something
bad with it. Technology can be misused and manipulated for evil purposes.
Moreover, humanity needs science in order to progress and the proof of this is
that societies that do not want to encourage research tend to disappear…
To conclude, I believe that
we have to put competent people in charge of deciding what is best for humanity
and of making the right laws to control scientific research, but in no way should
we prevent scientists from making the discoveries that could improve our world,
especially in the medical field.
Juliette MAGNIER will be a famous scientist some day...
No comments:
Post a Comment