Are There Things Which We Should Not Know? Essay

6. Should scientists do everything they are capable of doing? Give four arguments for your answer.

To ensure that a researcher’s enthusiasm for knowledge and understanding doesn’t let them get carried away, clear guidelines for ethical behaviour in research, a Code of Ethics, have been established by governments, institutions and various professional societies such as the American Psychological Association(APA), the British Psychological Society (BPS) and the Psychological Society of Ireland (PSI).

Through the ages, men have been able to find cures for catastrophic diseases through scientific research. Thanks to these advances, men have been able to prolong the life span of people, or provide better quality of life in cases in which a cure of various maladies has not been possible. To achieve such progresses, scientists have made use of prior knowledge, new theories, and technology obtaining numerous prodigious outcomes. Unfortunately, there have been many who have used questionable means for such ends. The German Max Clara is another case of a man with power and knowledge of science, who has misusing them. This paper aims to briefly identify principles and standards that would have been violated these days according to the existing APA Code of Ethics. Finally, ethical implications of making a moral judgment on past actions by researchers regarding human experimentation are discussed.

This section of Chalmers’ book makes the reader ponder the morality of medical experiments like abortions, stem cell research, and infanticide in the world today and questions whether we have learned from Nazi medical experiments in the past.

One field of genetic science which is crucial in society today is medicine where cloning is now possible. The need for moral reasoning is essential in this field because with greater power society must “[recognize] not only the limits of our knowledge but also our vulnerability to being misguided” with an evolving world (Dalai Lama 140). Humans have kept high moral responsibilities over the century when faced with new developments in knowledge. The Dalai Lama suggests that “our technological capacity has reached a critical point” during the past decade and the gap between knowledge and human ethics when making decisions has grown farther apart as new biogenetic science has arose (133). The issue is not whether

John M. Barry uses the various different types of rhetorical strategies to characterize scientific research by comparing the opposites of both certainty and uncertainty, by referring to life in the woods as a metaphor towards the mind and creation of science, and a series of rhetorical questions that shows the process and mind of the scientists portrayed in John M Barry’s essay.

Ethics throughout science are very controversial as they are the model of distinguishing between right and wrong throughout all aspects of research. Throughout Honeybee Democracy and The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks we are given an insider’s perspective into the ethics, or the lack there of, regarding the ongoing research and the researchers conducting it. Although the books cover very different subject matter, there are divisions of their research and within their individual ethics that are almost indistinguishable.

Science plays an integral role in the development and findings of many great things that we can benefit from. Integrity along with a specific set of moral standards must always be followed in order to ensure the end result enables a healthy environment for all whom wish to benefit from such studies. Integrity must always play and be the most essential key role in scientific research. In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1831) and Stevenson’s The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1886) one is able to conclude that integrity must be maintained while conducting scientific research as a lack of can result in the creation of monsters.

Where do we draw the line? The book, Brave New World, written by Aldous Huxley, was meant to be warning for what life could be if we lose our morals when it comes to scientific research. The science in the book has surpassed ours and shows that if we keep going the way we are going; we just might end up like them. This is evident due to the diminishing of morals in scientific research, developments in the research for test tube babies, and breakthroughs in science leading to designer babies. Our world used to thrive on hard work, dedication, and a strict moral code which has, more or less, diminished.

“There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. Our political life is also predicated on openness. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as [we] are free to ask what [we] must, free to say what [we] think, free to think what [we] will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress.”

“In this sense, free speech is a requirement in the search for truth—both scientifically and

Our country was founded on certain moral principles. The moral principles which guide our lives are referred to as ethics. These ethics have an impact on how we interact with the world around us and shape our personalities; this happens even if we do not realize their immediate impact. It is for this very reason that ethics in psychological research became necessary. “One may also define ethics as a method, procedure, or perspective for deciding how to act and for analyzing complex problems and issues” (Resnik, 2011). We are expected to behave or be treated a particular way in society, therefore we should be granted certain ethical treatments in regards to research.

Douglas J. Futuyma on the limits of science: [[S]cience seeks to explain only objective knowledge], [knowledge that can be acquired independently by different investigators if they follow a prescribed course of observation or experiment]. [Many human experiences and concerns are not objective] and (so) [do not fall within the realm of science]. (As a result), **[science has nothing to say about aesthetics or morality]**….[The functioning of human society, then, clearly requires principles that stem from some source other than science.]

Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 6th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Science is the knowledge gained by a systematic study, knowledge which then becomes facts or principles. In the systematic study; the first step is observation, the second step hypothesis, the third step experimentation to test the hypothesis, and lastly the conclusion whether or not the hypothesis holds true. These steps have been ingrained into every student of science, as the basic pathway to scientific discovery. This pathway holds not decision as to good or evil intention of the experiment. Though, there are always repercussions of scientific experiments. They range from the most simplistic realizations of the difference between acid and water to the principle that Earth is not the center of