A scientist suspects that if he or she continues to research nuclear physics, his or her country will use the findings to produce a weapon capable of annihilating thousands or even millions of innocent civilians. The scientist, however, strongly believes that a weapon of this magnitude should remain nonexistent. Should he or she continue with this research even though it could be used to create a weapon of mass destruction? The scientist absolutely should. A scientist has no moral obligations in regards to the unintended applications of his or her research because termination of scientific development deprives society of beneficial technological progress; discontinuation of potentially harmful research has no actual effect on the project’s overall timeline as another scientist will likely be willing to finish the research; and the moral responsibilities concerning the destructive use of scientific developments fall on government officials, not scientists. If a scientist ethically disagrees with the unintended applications of his or her research, the scientist should continue the work in order to effectuate the advantageous applications of the research. Cessation of research eliminates society’s opportunity to benefit from scientific progress. For instance, although some scientists may have been morally uncomfortable with creating atomic bombs during World War II, copious valuable developments of nuclear technology have emerged since the bombs’ creation. Examples of these
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
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.
The most difficult aspect of scientific study isn’t always the study of science itself, but making sure that the scientific research conducted and/or practiced is within the range of what is ethically and socially acceptable. Certain scientific subjects tend to blur this line of progress versus ethics, such as stem cell research and gene modification. But how can one manage to keep both sides of the quandary satisfied? Such is the case with Henrietta Lacks and her “immortal” cells, known as the HeLa cell line, and how they were taken from her without her consent. The controversy surrounding Lacks’ cells enters morally grey territory, where there is no objectively correct side, and well-made
There is a thin line between going too far with scientific research and what is acceptable for the greater good. Most people don’t know where this line starts and stops which can lead to problems. This is presently shown in Mary Shelley's book Frankenstein as the main character, Victor Frankenstein, goes beyond this line almost to the levels of “god”. He wants to create life from death to help some of the world’s problems, such as disease. He goes to great extents to fulfil his dreams, but in his arrogance, he doesn’t see the repercussions that his research could have on himself and others.
The basis behind scientific research is to have a better understanding of the world we live in and how humans may further improve their current lifestyle. But should the scientists behind the research be held accountable for the impact their work has on future lifestyle? Should the scientists behind the discovery of greenhouse gasses be responsible for global warming? Should the scientists behind nuclear fusion be responsible for the outcome of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings in World War II? This last question I will be discussing further later on. I believe that scientists should not be held responsible for the consequences of their work. I will defend my position with examples of scientific discoveries that have ultimately led to
Because of increase in regulation for nuclear reactors, the demand of substitutes for nuclear energy increase. As a result, the demand of nuclear reactors has begun to decline. An increase in demand for other green energy like solar, geothermal, and wind are now being looked at as possible alternatives. The article “Nuclear crossroad” starts off by explain its wish to elongate the life of reactors in the Diablo Canyon area. The issue of new environmental laws being passed has forced the nuclear plant to make changes to meet the new standards, in order renew operating
“None but those who have experienced them can conceive of the enticements of science” (Shelley 29). This is a quote from Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein that shows how exciting the thrill of scientific adventure can be. Scientific research has both positive and negative sides. There are times when a medical breakthrough could be very beneficial. On the other hand, scientific testing can be very dangerous and harmful to people.
On August 6th, 1945, the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan. Whether you believe it changed the world for better or for worse, there’s no denying that the planet will never be the same. This fission technology opened the door for a whole new era of science, global politics, and warfare. But just how destructive can these bombs become? Who decides which countries can have these bombs, and what sort of power does it give them? Is it possible to use fission technology be used for other, more humanitarian projects?
Nuclear energy is the energy kept inside of an atom. This energy can be released by going through the process of fission or fusion. Fission is the separation of considerably large atoms into smaller ones. Fusion is the opposite of fission; it is the combining of small atoms into a large one. We receive nuclear energy every day by using fission in nuclear power plants across the world.
Nuclear forces have been around the human race since the beginning of time, though it was not until recently that people began to understand it. Nuclear decay has helped scientists discover how long unstable isotopes maintain their unstable state before becoming a more stable isotope. The study of nuclear chemistry has given people in the medical field powerful tools to combat feared illnesses such as cancer. Nuclear forces have also provided an alternative energy source to coal and natural gas. The field of nuclear chemistry encompasses many aspects including nuclear decay, radioactive elements in medicine, and nuclear energy.
The diameter of the Milky Way galaxy is a whopping 9.5 x 10^17 kilometers. The fact that an area larger that the human brain can even begin to envision is just a miniscule corner of the universe unnerves and maybe even frightens me, but it also fills me with great awe. As a result, I want to gain a more profound understanding of our universe. The Physics of Atomic Nuclei program would give me the chance to gain this understanding by helping me explore scientific research, immersing me in the field of physics and advance my love of science.
A pellet of nuclear fuel weighs roughly 0.1 ounces, but yet has the same amount of energy as a ton of coal (McLeish, 2008, p. 47). Such a small portion of nuclear fuel can produce a magnificent impact. This strong energy alternative must be closely analyzed to predict the future of its ability. There are many characteristics that must be taken into account to permit a nuclear power plant to operate properly.
Within the last century scientific discovery has been growing at an exponential rate. Evolution, genetics, physics, and chemistry have all greatly affected the way people view the universe and human role in it. Furthermore, the application of scientific discoveries has physically changed society. For example, humans went from being flightless to eighty years later having transportation in super sonic jets available. Rapid scientific change has caused many issues surrounding morality and science to arise. The idea behind the skepticism is that just because something can be done doesnt mean it should be. Nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and cloning have all fallen under fire due to this concept. People worry that
There exists an ethical issue in whether it is morally acceptable for engineers to participate in the research, design, and manufacture of weapons. Weapons by nature are designed to hurt if not kill another individual. As such, the development of weapons by engineers seems to be contradictory to one of the fundamental canons of the NSPE code of ethics to “hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public”. As an aspiring Aerospace engineer, I will be entering a field that has a sizeable contribution to the development of weapons of war. I will analyze the topic using different ethical theories to determine if engineers should continue to contribute to the development weapons that’s will affect the safety of the public.
Throughout the course of history, scientific discoveries have led to the birth of new knowledge. Humanity’s increase in knowledge has helped to achieve new heights of understanding in a variety of fields such as medicine, nuclear power, and nuclear weapons. While some of these achievements in science can generate much prosperity, some technology has created significant amounts of controversy. The Honors 2400 class entitled The Chernobyl Incident has granted me over the course of the semester the opportunity to analyze these scenarios and understand the challenging questions that are associated with the pursuit of knowledge. From many examples discussed in class, I understand the importance of limiting knowledge, the discoveries that humanity should or should not pursue, how individuals pursue confined questions, and who is ultimately responsible for approving or disapproving of these scientific questions.
Humanity’s interest in unknown world has been universal and enduring. Accompany with human development, discovery the unknown world has become more and more important to human life. Some people think discovery is a good thing. They will tell you how X-ray used by medical professionals to help diagnose and treat a wide range of medical problems. They will also tell you what a mass your life will be if Benjamin Franklin did not discovered electricity. But other argue people think discovery bring disaster to human. They will tell you if Martin Heinrich Klaproth did not discover uranium, maybe atomic bomb would not been invented. Although the question about whether discovery always a good thing has so many