What is the difference between "scientific concern" and a "social and ethical" concern?

Question

any good sites about the information?

Answer 1

Scientific concern: the theme should be free of inconsistencies. The conclusions should be right.
Social and ethical: the theme should be acceptable for God, men and environment.

Th

Answer 2

A scientific concern is one that interests science. Like the present stem-cell controversy. Many people want to promote stem-cell technology. In other words, in the interests of science, we want to improve our knowledge and benefit the sick if this will make people well again. The "social and ethical" concern is that they want to take the stem cells from newly-made babies called foetuses. This might mean making lots of tiny multiple-celled babies and then choose one, mangle it up to take the cells, and then let it die, throw it away, and then throw away all the other little babies that you don't want.

Nowadays in the interests of science, a lot of vocabulary has been cooked up to cover the truth of what is going on. For baby, say foetus. It sounds less human. For murder, say abortion. It sounds more scientific and permissible. A lot of people do a lot of things that nature and their own feelings tell them is wrong but then it is legal, so it must be okay. Is it? Who on earth is qualified to decide when a human being is not a human being?

In the interests of science, it is a new modern-day process to have a woman rent out her womb and bear somebody else's baby. This is scientifically interesting. Scientific concern wants to know if this can be done easily and how to best do it. Socially, we wonder who is the "real" mother to the baby. Sometimes the "rented mother" provides the egg cell too. So she is the genetic mother as well. The child takes after her and has her genes. But she gives it to another couple and for money. Now, if you are the child, who is your real mother? See the social concern?

Are your brothers and sisters the children of the couple who asked for this to be done, or are they the children of the hired mother. Who is going to look after you when you are old? Can you call on them to give a kidney if yours go bad? If you run out of money, do they have the duty of providing for you?

There is no yes or no in this. Everything becomes grey in clearness. In a way, adopted children face something similar, and it can happen that adoption children are devastated to find they are adopted. They get an identity crisis.

Lastly, is it ethical (morally correct) to do this thing -- rent a womb? Is it ethical for a 66-year-old granny to bear a baby for the first time at her age? Scientifically it is again very interesting. But what are the needs and interests and concerns of a child who finds her mother is like what her granny should be, and who may die when she is very young? Who cannot chase her fast enough to safe her from falling? Who will grow senile and useless when she is ten years old?

Who is there to say it is right or wrong? If you don't believe in God, there are no answers to this. If you do, you have to wonder what God thinks. This is why people are guided by a religion.

Most religions (Christian, Islam, Buddhist, Hindu) think that tinkering with life is wrong. It is in the realm of God to do the fiddling with making people and deciding their fates.

Even a lot of religious people don't know the answer, don't buy what their religion is teaching, and don't care. Question: are people happier who have no morals? Let someone else answer this question.