How to choose what improves us and what harms us.
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Location: US, MI
Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 869
Posted Jun 10, 2012 - 6:36 PM:
Subject: Scientific regulation
On the subject of bioethics, the most transparent and discussed problem in our culture is abortion, which deals exclusively with a woman and a baby and ultimately affects her foremost; another is the use of Euthanasia. With science advancing rapidly, their are more bioethical questions coming into gear, like cloning, stem-cell research, and other things that are culture-affecting.
The UK (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/...cientific-fraud-regulation) are approaching regulation with alot of opposition from the scientists; they feel like it should be the employers responsibility to watch over scientist's doings. Yet, the one at the top most likely direct unjust science: why not have scientific labs, in sensitive areas, ran by government?
Future inventions we may not even be conscious of: So for the scientist grinding away in their labs, what stops them from creating a dangerous new breakthrough, which would create for them indefinite fame? And what group decides whether or not an anecdote is or isn't released, because of over-population? Ethical questions will have to be more analytic in nature, yet that seems hypocritical to the public. What to do?
Edited by Lopa Mills on Jun 10, 2012 - 6:48 PM