....at the drop of a hat for the most generous patron?
should science work for the common good [including other living creatures] or should it work for the deepest pocket?
2007-06-24 07:47:49 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Other - Science
I think that the scientists themselves should have compassion in deciding what they want to learn more about and what problems they want to try to solve. The scientific work itself, the experiments and how they are conducted, need to be done in an objective and emotionless manner in order to obtain the most accurate results. I believe in capitalism, but we need incentives and funding by the government to steer more scientists into focusing on the most serious problems. While I think it is great that scientists are putting in a lot of effort to cure baldness, it would be better if there was more money put into curing cancer.
2007-06-24 08:17:20 · answer #1 · answered by Alan S 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Science has always worked for diverse reasons. As for the final result on wether dispassionate science resolves more things or any other argument like that, and the answer is difinitive, varying, and otherwise impossible to contribute from a logically drawn conclusion. I personally believe that everything has it's place, and that includes the right of people who wish to create to do so freely. What they make in thier workings is their business, so long as it remains legal (which a gas chamber is not). The practice of science in a controlled area within reasonable limitations of humanity is fine.
2007-06-24 08:06:44 · answer #2 · answered by masterfreak2911 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Science must pursue the truth dispassionately or else it ceases to be science. How one uses the knowledge that science affords is a different matter and depends on the priorities of the individuals and cultures involved. For example, many scientists who developed the atomic bomb for the US felt it was an horrible, immoral weapon, but that it was necessary to invent and use it before their adversaries, who were working on the same technology, could develop and deploy their own version upon the US.
2007-06-24 18:13:52 · answer #3 · answered by vladbath 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Science works for the common good; to gain understanding, and share knowlede. To create a better life for us all, without impacting too much on our planet or other creatures.
However, it doesn't always work that way (e.g. the nuclear bomb). But it should be for the common good, the gaining of knowledge, and the benefit of all.
2007-06-25 00:43:14 · answer #4 · answered by Kit Fang 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is a matter of personal opinion. I think science should be used for the good of mankind, but for some scientists money really is an important factor.
It is up to you to make the right choise.
2007-06-24 07:57:45 · answer #5 · answered by nobody 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ethics is a division of phiosophy, it is also something that should guide us as we do scientific research. So, yes, compassion does have a place in science or we are doomed to repeat history...over and over again!
2007-06-24 08:03:12 · answer #6 · answered by cd_y 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
tough question. I think every type of science should be explored, even things that people consider to be cruel. But I don't think that these sciences should be given away to anyone who has enough money. They should be used to better mankind.
2007-06-24 07:53:07 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Science is not a thing, it is a method. How we employ the method is a matter of ethics.
2007-06-24 07:53:42 · answer #8 · answered by October 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The world is doomed, does it really matter?
2007-06-24 08:01:32 · answer #9 · answered by ffreedive 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋