Should scientists consider morality during reasearch?
2007-09-04 12:22:07 · 5 answers · asked by ashj2011 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Earth Sciences & Geology
This is an opinion and a question of ethics.
When the Nazi Doctor Mengele tested to see when hypoxia (lack of oxygen) effects would set in he used human subjects. He put them in pressure chambers and reduced the oxygen level and determined what happened to them. He recorded their point of losing consciousness and their point of death.
They were valuable experiments, but the data collected was done in a very horrible fashion. What are your thoughts on this? That is where you will start your paper.
PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) hate animal testing ALL animal testing. Some animals have makeup put on them to see if they have an allergic reaction. If they do then that makeup has to be reformulated before it can be sold. Do you think this is fair, would you prefer the test to be done on a human or that the makeup should just be sold to the public with no testing and the company hopes that nothing bad happens?
A lot of mice have died in the course of finding treatments and causes for cancer and other problems, we know that asbestos is a cancer agent not just because humans got sick after expose, but because we proved that it was ONLY that exposure which made them sick. To do this mice were subjected to various amounts of asbestos and then after a while they were all killed and dissected to see what cancers they had and the effects on their lung tissues. Because of this asbestos is now no longer used and when it is found special care has to be taken with its removal and disposal to not injure the workers or the environment. Many mice had to die to reach that understanding and those laws. Was the price worth it?
At what point do we say no? I hope it is before Doctor Mengele gets to work again, he is considered dead, but a lot of the information he collected is still being used. Is that moral, is it legal? We know that pilots black out at 9 Gs because we put them in centrifuges and subject them to 9 Gs so they know what it feels like and how to look for the signs. This is an important part of their training and if they don't get past it then they can't become fighter pilots. We don't test these pilots to death and we make sure they are physically healthy before under going those tests, but there is still a risk.
At what point is a life created? In stem cell research a human female egg is fertilized and then destroyed soon after to get the stem cells. The egg is destroyed long before it starts to become a baby, but not before it starts to divide and multiply several times. According to the Republican party and many religious people the point where life is created is at the fertilization so this research is murder. To the Democrats the eggs are extra eggs that were going to either be thrown out or kept frozen. No life is allowed to develop so the point of murder is not reached. Where you stand on these issues determines your ethics on scientific research.
Personally, I am glad a lot of mice died to find causes for cancer so fewer people died. I am not happy about testing makeup on animals to see if they have an allergic reaction and I think what the Nazis and Doctor Mengele did was horrible and totally without ethics. Ethics are important and human testing is rarely a good idea, but many useful drugs were found by doing exactly that. How do you stand on the issue, where do you draw the line? I know a person who was offered a place in a medical trial. He had to eat a very specific diet and take a special heart medication for which they would pay him $5,.000. Of course the catch was that there was a 20% chance of him dieing for it. He didn't go for it. Was the company ethical in offering it to him, is $5.000 enough for a 20% chance of death, where do you draw the line?
Answer those questions and you will know where to start your paper. Yes ethics are important and ALL people should have ethics and stick to them. To not do so is to create chaos. Do you think the researchers liked killing and cutting open all those mice, would you? Would you do the same experiments on a monkey, where do you draw the line? Is it alright to kill mice who are breed only for experiments and if so is it alright to kill a monkey for the same reason?
The line lies somewhere in that mess, before Dr. Mengele and for most people after killing mice (they are just small rats after all). A pig had to die for your ham sandwich, yet you still may eat ham. Some people don't they won't eat anything with a face. Others will happily slaughter the pig themselves, most of us don't want to know where our ham sandwich comes from and leave it at that.
If your paper is one of opinion then you have to try and establish the lines. If your paper is purely one of information then you need to discuss other's attempts to establish those lines. That is how you will write your paper.
2007-09-04 12:53:08 · answer #1 · answered by Dan S 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Boost your grade--spell "research" correctly in your paper.
2007-09-05 13:13:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's not "help", you're asking people to answer it for you. Just answer it. What do you think?
.
2007-09-04 12:29:28 · answer #3 · answered by Kacky 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, always
2007-09-04 14:28:01 · answer #4 · answered by geologist_tim 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK GIRL!!
2007-09-04 12:29:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋