The Bioethics of Jurassic Park: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » The Bioethics of Jurassic Park » The Bioethics of Jurassic Park

The Bioethics of Jurassic Park

Page: 1 2 3

The Bioethics of Jurassic Park

Arkady
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 459

Posted 10/26/09 - 04:04 AM:	#11
Desidude666 wrote: Ian Malcolms' words here - "Building your theme parks over the shoulders (Newtons' quote) of giants - you didn't accumulate such knowledge yourself, you don't take any responsibility for it (result of cloning), building something just because you could, you forgot if you should (ethical responsibility)." A couple of lines of the first movie from different scenes, but they sum up what I think of biotechnology. Yes, Malcolm has a similar speech in the book, basically saying that scientists don't take responsibility for their work because it takes no "discipline" to attain it (they stand "on the shoulders of giants") as you say. I have a couple of serious problems with Malcolm's contention. First, there is the obvious point that scientists necessarily stand on the shoulders of those who came before them; the scientific enterprise builds upon the work of others. It would be impossible for each new generation to re-invent the wheel, and no progress would be made. Second, attaining scientific knowledge does require a great deal of discipline. Scientific knowledge can be quite difficult and abstract, taking a great deal of effort to learn. And to be a serious researcher, one usually must have a PhD, requiring 4 years of undergrad work, often as many as 5 years of graduate work, a post-doc, grant applications, etc. Being a scientist is not an easy gig and requires discipline, dedication, and sacrifice.
"Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing." -T.H. Huxley

slap
User of Mental Cosmetics

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 04, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 100

Posted 10/26/09 - 02:02 PM:	#12
Desidude666 wrote: As Malcolm is quoted again, "Life finds a way..." and evolution has taught us that all life is determined to survive, in the most challenging of environments. In that sense, the moral and ethical case is clearly against such endeavours. In fact, we shouldn't clone anything until we perfect the process anyway. If we could clone a perfectly synthetic human being, we could expand on other species. And if you don't think cloning a human being is ethical, I don't it is as such for any other species. Extinct or in existence. I'm curious, how can we perfect the technique of an action without actually doing it? Theoretically you can teach me all there is to know about titration for example, however when I do it for the first time I'm still incredibly likely to mess it up. This same kind of reasoning would also seemingly remove any ability we have to experiment on animals. Should we also not test new medicines on lab rats, because the rats might find a way? You must be careful what your reasoning against cloning gives away elsewhere, and it seems like its giving up some mighty intuitive actions.
Harm(For a person)= 1-Happiness/% or relevant knowledge known

Desidude666
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2007
Location: Singapore

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 334

Posted 10/26/09 - 11:10 PM:	#13
Arkady wrote: Yes, Malcolm has a similar speech in the book, basically saying that scientists don't take responsibility for their work because it takes no "discipline" to attain it (they stand "on the shoulders of giants") as you say. I have a couple of serious problems with Malcolm's contention. First, there is the obvious point that scientists necessarily stand on the shoulders of those who came before them; the scientific enterprise builds upon the work of others. It would be impossible for each new generation to re-invent the wheel, and no progress would be made. Second, attaining scientific knowledge does require a great deal of discipline. Scientific knowledge can be quite difficult and abstract, taking a great deal of effort to learn. And to be a serious researcher, one usually must have a PhD, requiring 4 years of undergrad work, often as many as 5 years of graduate work, a post-doc, grant applications, etc. Being a scientist is not an easy gig and requires discipline, dedication, and sacrifice. Well, Malcolm's a chaos theorist, so he would always be able to use unpredictability as a constant (whatever our position). Whatever is unpredictable leads to chaos, and you then assess that rationally. Firstly, scientists stand on the shoulders of giants, they are not as 'tall' as one should be when one engages in something this serious, and their true height is a matter of opinion. When you build it, you realise the potential. When you use someone's build, you realise it's utility. That's the case. Utility. Will you use it 'right'? If it at all should be used... When you read someone's work and then adopt it to extend your own theories, you engage in assumptions as they aren't your own. If you do not have the competency of your 'giants', where understanding of the references go, you are bound to be making errors on decisions you don't eye with sufficient assiduity. That said, the new generation uses the wheel to run the car, however, they would not be as competent on a wheel to realise potential uses, or rather, ethical and social misuses. Of course, if you consider the wheel, you are proposing a very simple invention. Let's expand it. Let's talk about biotechnology and genetics. Is it all that simple? Are you exactly sure that a PhD (say from MIT) is as competent as Albert Einstein on relativity? Think about it. Are we referencing it, or are we truly engaged in it? It's his work, and his work will always be his - the cognitive thumbprint here is unique. 4 years of undergraduate work, leading to a 1A/11A followed by a Masters (in some cases even as a terminal phase with a Masters, or pre-examination phase without a formal Masters), that's 5 years. Most PhD programmes quote 3-4 years, usually non-American being 3 and American 4, however for serious researchers it's usually at least 5 years of research in the US. Hence, in total, you need 4 + 1 + 4 = 9 years of college education until you publish a paper (or your 80,000 word thesis). And if you decrease it, 4 - 3 (as the honours year is where real research begins) it is at least 5 years of research alone. And despite my understanding of this, I still stand by my assessment. Science today is not as easy as a wheel, the vast encompassing nature of study today will affect the environment, it will affect lives and it will affect you directly. With such a development and nature of science today, from what it was 10-20 years ago, you need ethical and social responsibilities - unless it's your own creation, you will not realise the responsibilities that come with a possibility. Quite frankly, Malcolm, or Crichton in reality, was right when he said that in the book. That "You stood on the shoulders of giants, build something as quickly as you could but failed to realise if you should'. I am a fan of the franchise, and Crichton being an MD knew what he was talking about.
What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven

Desidude666
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2007
Location: Singapore

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 334

Posted 10/26/09 - 11:19 PM:	#14
slap wrote: I'm curious, how can we perfect the technique of an action without actually doing it? Theoretically you can teach me all there is to know about titration for example, however when I do it for the first time I'm still incredibly likely to mess it up. This same kind of reasoning would also seemingly remove any ability we have to experiment on animals. Should we also not test new medicines on lab rats, because the rats might find a way? You must be careful what your reasoning against cloning gives away elsewhere, and it seems like its giving up some mighty intuitive actions. Again, it's supposed to be an ethical point of contention - that you should not engage in such endeavours. If you should, you should firstly perfect it on human beings (perfectly created synthetic human beings are pretty much impossible really) because you are trying it on yourselves - which is always deplored in society. In that sense, the requisites to allow ethical considerations into the question are very high thereby undermining a potential process completely. Of course you are not supposed to perfect it, because firstly the possibility is very difficult, and secondly that it has far too many pre-requisites to meet ethical and social benchmarks. Harmless testing, or fatal testing on animals where costs of potential ignorance exceed social and ethical gains are always a matter of decision, social decisions. There is no categorical imperative outside politics, so we have to remain fluid in our own decisions.
What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven

keefm2005
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 29, 2009
Location: Edinburgh

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 3

Posted 10/29/09 - 02:54 PM:	#15
Arkady wrote: When I made a reference to Frankenstein's monster, I was just drawing an analogy to the profound loneliness that the creature felt and the loneliness a resurrected hominid would likely feel. I wasn't comparing ALL biotech to Frankenstein, by any means. I think your use of the Frankenstein model is spot on. If we consider the cloning of a human being, the loneliness of the creation would indeed be a disadvantage. But there is a wider meaning in the Frankenstein story which relates to all aspects of nature - what is the need of replicating life? Just as Frankenstein's monster had no purpose on Earth, a fact which he quickly realised, what purpose would a dinosaur theme park serve? In bioethical terms, there is no basis for such a thing.

Arkady
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 459

Posted 10/29/09 - 03:01 PM:	#16
keefm2005 wrote: ...what purpose would a dinosaur theme park serve? In bioethical terms, there is no basis for such a thing. I think the scientific value of resurrecting dinosaurs is reason enough to do it, both for the studying of live dinosaurs and the proof of principle/scientific advance of resurrecting extinct animals in such a manner.
"Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing." -T.H. Huxley

Desidude666
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2007
Location: Singapore

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 334

Posted 10/30/09 - 12:06 AM:	#17
Arkady wrote: I think the scientific value of resurrecting dinosaurs is reason enough to do it, both for the studying of live dinosaurs and the proof of principle/scientific advance of resurrecting extinct animals in such a manner. It actually depends on the manner of production. If you ahve to borrow genetic information from elsewhere, it is a major issue then, it is not the same animal anymore - do you have the perfect reference? If you have a perfect specimen and the perfect process, that'd be considered with seriousness. You do know that the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park started breeding spontaneously, right? Male could be female and vice versa due to borrowing of genetic sequences from certain frogs, so if you cannot ascertain functional possibilities in animals you are cloning, it really defeats your purpose of actually cloning to study. You are 'creating' new species, not the extinct animal. I wonder what is your guarantee that a cloned animal extinct 65 million years ago would be a perfect replication of the fossilized. Time has passed, the amount of oxygen in the air has changed, the vegetation has changed and even bacteria is less volatile. I wonder what you could 'study'. What happens if such animals come with a possible bio hazard? What guarantees do you have that there isn't any? Are you able to answer such questions? Dinosaurs became extinct, but the theories of why so range from volcanic activities, to meteors and to disease. What happens if you trigger the last one of the mentioned possibilities? There are far too many questions to ask and you need to be responsible to society. As Crichton said, you put something together just because you could and forgot to think if you should. Perfectly justified quotes.
What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3305

Posted 10/30/09 - 02:43 AM:	#18
Loneliness of the Frankenstein monster or T-Rex isn't really a strong argument against such kinds of creations. I believe the Frankenstein story was more about the monster being rejected by his creator, who he considered a kind of parent, and later society, because they didn't tolerate ugly people. The T-Rex probably wouldn't have a clue or cared whether it was the only one or not. I don't think he would have been the only one, (but I haven't read the book, and the movies made him out to be "good" because he killed the "evil" velociraptors). Every individual has some level of uniqueness, so it would follow that we should all be morose about not having someone else exactly like us? I think it is still a cultural bias, simply because such creations are novel, we tend to place them on the outside of cultural identity, and project our own sense of being lonely without society's blessings. If you had a Jurassic park-lite, where a group of scientists were resurrecting recently extinct, but cute, fuzzy or intelligent creatures, it would probably be considered a "miracle of science" and not an aberration. It might be useful to consider the act of resurrecting a clone of someone popular and positive. What about resurrection/clone of Martin Luther King Jr, Ghandi, Einstein, Mother Theresa or a Kennedy? (Most sci-fi seems intent on resurrecting evil people). Would we grant them the same honorific considerations as a son or daughter of someone great, or would they be considered freaks because they didn't get here the "accepted" way?
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

Arkady
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 459

Posted 10/30/09 - 03:31 AM:	#19
swstephe wrote: Loneliness of the Frankenstein monster or T-Rex isn't really a strong argument against such kinds of creations. No, which is why I specified hominids, as opposed to just any extinct creatures. Hominids would almost certainly have a brain complex enough for self-awareness, and thus the capacity to know that they were the only one of its kind. I doubt a t-rex would have such a capacity.
"Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing." -T.H. Huxley

Desidude666
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2007
Location: Singapore

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 334

Posted 11/05/09 - 11:49 PM:	#20
swstephe wrote: L If you had a Jurassic park-lite, where a group of scientists were resurrecting recently extinct, but cute, fuzzy or intelligent creatures, it would probably be considered a "miracle of science" and not an aberration. It might be useful to consider the act of resurrecting a clone of someone popular and positive. What about resurrection/clone of Martin Luther King Jr, Ghandi, Einstein, Mother Theresa or a Kennedy? (Most sci-fi seems intent on resurrecting evil people). Would we grant them the same honorific considerations as a son or daughter of someone great, or would they be considered freaks because they didn't get here the "accepted" way? The point has been perfection in the cloning process. How do you know that the Gandhi out of the lab would be the same one that died? What's the point of such scientific endeavours when you know it will not result in what is expected? Theoretically, sure - but why at all? What good will cloning bring, and the problem is the complexity. Why should you have to borrow sequences from another biological specimen?
What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven

Page: 1 2 3

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.