to what extent are scientists responsible for the applications of knowledge they discover?

Question

to what extent are scientists responsible for the applications of knowledge they discover? should scientists abandon research because of its possible harmful uses? explain.

Answer 1

Just because scientific discoveries might have destructive possibilities doesn't mean that all possibilities are destructive or that all people will use those discoveries toward destructive ends. Nuclear energy may have killed tens of thousands at the end of World War II, but used differently nuclear energy is generating much of the world's energy needs.

If scientists abandon research, what technology won't we have? The real issue is political and moral, not scientific. It's up to leaders and citizens to thoroughly debate and decide upon what technology their societies will use, how it will be used and what restrictions will be put on the technology's use. But if scientists don't conduct research, how will they know what possible outcomes there are?

I know some of you are tempted to ask about stem-cell research, which is certainly a hot-button issue that has a lot of moral considerations attached to it. I believe in the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception to the moment of death, and the destruction of human embryos for the sake of scientific research is just the first step down the path toward the further cheapening of human life that might give us scientific answers but the destruction of any moral framework through which to view those discoveries. Just because we can conduct certain experiments doesn't necessarily mean we should.

Answer 2

> to what extent are scientists responsible for the applications of knowledge they discover?
Very little, actually.

> should scientists abandon research because of its possible harmful uses?
Sometimes. Someone who's trying to increase the infection rate of smallpox virus should probably not do that. There are some guidelines and laws in place to prevent grad students (and professors!!) from getting too carried away. Every university that has an "infectious agent lab" or that works with certain amounts of radioactive material will have a "safety office" that keeps an eye on the personnel who are working with the materials.

I had to read a booklet and listen to an audio tape to be allowed to work with tritium-bearing compounds. Also, I wore a film badge and a film ring and a lead apron. Long time ago.

Answer 3

Look at it this way, if Wernher Von Braun and the other German rocket scientists did not have something that we British and American allies wanted, they would have found themselves at Nuremberg along with Speer and the (other) Nazi war criminals.
Now , whether the "other" belongs in the sentence was a matter of an international trial law that did not exist and also was a matter of ethics on both sides of the Atlantic.
An normal society which is always amoral will justify anything that is expediently seen to be in it's self-interest. So the question of moral ethics is over-ridden by patriotism. Considering a potential for fame or for acquired wealth the usual amoral answer to a question of could you-should you ethics is that , "if you don't do it somebody else will."
So your question poses yet other questions like - responsible to whom ? and when ? and why ? and that gets into the morals of religious accountability that few scientists or philosophers really want to hear. And that too is just being normal.

Answer 4

If I saw to someone "There's an owl in that tree." that could be a "scientific observation". In principle it is the same thing as discovering nuclear fission or dozens of other things. Now if that person later goes and gets a rifle and kills the owl, am I responsible for that?

Answer 5

generally, no. Scientists look for to comprehend the organic international (straight forward technological information) or remedy a situation (utilized technological information). The purpose at the back of their activities is very almost on no account offender, although their discoveries might have offender skill while misinterpreted or misused. interior the examples you reported, discoveries appropriate to cloning and stem cells have been immensely efficient contributions to biology, even although they have the flair to offend or entice blame. while used wisely, such information is efficient, no longer risky. learn today appropriate to weapons progression is greater iffy; Oppenheimer is remembered as a large scientist, yet his artwork resulted in tens of millions of deaths and injuries. His artwork replaced into justified via WWII and so he replaced into no longer culpable for outcomes of the atomic bomb. yet in a manner, he and his team are to "blame", possibly, for the state of nuclear proliferation that we've at present. purpose is a vital element in no count if or no longer scientists could be blamed for probably risky discoveries. in almost all of circumstances, scientists don't have malicious purpose.