English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-05-10 09:15:16 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics Biology

2 answers

To some extent EVERYTHING is regulated as long as you live in a society. One of the strictest means of controlling research of any kind that already exists is by the purse-strings.

Research (at least as it is generally conducted now) is wickedly expensive. It is so expensive that only the largest of corporations and whole governments can generally afford it. Corporations have to answer to stockholders, so they generally conduct as little as they can get away with. Governments can be a little more far-sighted (or perhaps they just get away with more) but have to generally be responsive to their citizenry as well. So that is already quite a bit of regulation.

But I suspect you are referring to a kind of regulation over and above this. The kind that exists for dangerous diseases, nuclear materials, and the like. Keep in mind that scientists still have to follow laws, so it's not like they can already perform any kind of atrocities in a general sense.

In a sense, there may be a basis for regulation. You can't just produce and study anthrax because it poses a danger to other people. So, too, perhaps cloning: though the danger it poses is to a more limited group - the creatures produced - it could pose a danger to them.

Arguably, however, so too does ANY venture that produces new life. Should dog breeders be regulated so they don't produce any canine monstrousities? What about chicken ranchers? Maybe all adult humans should be put under strict control, lest those with genetic and sexually transmitted diseases choose to spread them carelessly...

But then you have a definitional problem. What is 'bad' breeding? Once you open that Pandora's Box, you have to untangle questions about eugenics, population control, and any number of other nasty issues.

Frankly, I think they're too nasty. Societies can and have argued about such things for thousands of years and not come to any solid conclusions (Plato, after all, was one of the early proponents of eugenics). If nobody can agree about what a 'good' and 'bad' result is, how can it possibly be regulated along those lines?

Though it would be nice to have some hard and fast guidelines - even scientists would like this! - I don't see any forthcoming. Best to stick with the current regulatory process than implement further ones of questionable efficacy.

2007-05-10 11:31:05 · answer #1 · answered by Doctor Why 7 · 0 0

Definitely. I don't want another me to come to my house.

2007-05-10 09:19:28 · answer #2 · answered by jolin10 4 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers