The Limits Of Scientific Limits

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.

Embryonic stem cell research is important for further development in the medical field. It strongly supports the idea that every life has value, an idea known as human dignity. Human beings are created in the image and likeness of God, and thus, are all equal. The idea of radical equality before God leads us to think no less of someone regardless of their physical appearance, religious beliefs, cultural background, or anything else. It is through virtues such as charity, mercy, and justice that our human dignity is preserved. By living through these virtues and realizing how to effectively instill them within us, we are able to live a virtuous life. This paper argues that although issues involving embryonic stem cell research are controversial, research in this area is typically permissible for further development in the medical field when looking to preserve human dignity. In order to defend this thesis, this paper will be structured into three sections as followed: the description of embryonic stem cell research, the development of a moral lens, and the moral argument and analysis of this case.

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

Medical advancements are very important for extending the quality and quantity of life, however a strong moral compass is needed to make sure, in the name of science, ethical and moral science are not crossed. Brave New World, written by Aldous Huxley, and the movie Gattaca propose a technologically advanced society that challenges these ethical and moral views. Although Brave New World and Gattaca relate in the aspect of genetic discrimination, they differ in the limits and powers of technology and the effects of human spirit.

Human genetic engineering is one of the newest scientific breakthroughs allowing DNA that is considered “bad” to be replaced using CRISPR. Due to this new technology discovered, many scientists around the world have agreed on banning the practice of humans and embryos, after China first was able to partially succeed in using CRISPR on embryos. The topic of human engineering is very controversial on ethics but also the benefits of the outcome on human genetic engineering and the fast pace that it is going in. Mary Shelley explains in Frankenstein that scientific progress is advancing faster than the human knowledge of science and shows this when Victor creates the creation and how he deals with the creation afterwards. Scientists are careful about transgressing ethical boundaries in the name of progress so that humans should

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.

As Mankind continues to advance it is pursuit of knowledge, it is faced with myriad dilemmas, particularly in the cases of cloning, stem cell experimentation, and the genetic sequencing of viruses and pathogens. The academic article “Bioterrorism, Embryonic Stem Cells, and Frankenstein” written by Patrick Guinan, discusses the morality and potential hubris of sciences continued exploration of seemingly forbidden areas, as well as humanities identity and potential desire to achieve knowledge to rival God. Guinan 's research aims to explore, question, and ultimately bring light to the potential issues that may arise from such pursuits. This research raises several questions, as well as causes of concern, which will all be addressed in this essay. The author of this article makes use of intelligent analysis, evidence from ages both recent and ancient, and well thought out discourse, in order to cause readers to consider just what ethics and morality is to science, as well as what it is to our identity as humanity as a whole.

"Human beings are not disposable biological material." (Saunders 1). You get where I’m going with this, right? William Saunders, a catholic Priest, debates his viewpoint on Stem Cell Research, calling it unethical, and those who do it, killers. Saunders argues

Scientific research has often challenged boundaries of what people find necessary and oppositions to advancements in the field are mainly composed of fear—is nature being tested? Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein depicts Victor Frankenstein pushing the boundaries of nature in the name of science, when it seems like the world was not ready for such a creation. A college student today might remember growing up with Dolly the Sheep, the first successful cloned mammal. Dolly’s achievement received mixed criticism, including the fear of possible danger due to accessible cloning. More recently, scientific innovations such as Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) or Designer Babies push people’s expectations of science and the

This paper discusses the recent history of stem cell research in the United States, tracking the controversies, politics, and promise of new technology that comes with a moral price. Starting in August of 2001, with President Bush's request that Stem Cell Research not be paid for with federal funding, the battle of science against religion began. (Rosenburg, 2001) Despite extreme pressure from the science community, and the threat of falling behind other nations in this critical research, President Bush never rescinded his ban on federal funding of stem cell research. President Obama, since March 2009, has lifted this ban on federal funding of stem cell research, and for the past three years American scientists have been playing catch up with the rest of the world. The future of stem cell research is promising, but the upcoming presidential field, especially Candidate Rick Santorum, is a threat to the pursuance of this most precious technology. It looks as though the more moderate Mitt Romney will win the Republican nomination, however, and therefore federal funding for stem cells may continue even if Romney wins the general election in November. Stem Cell Research is only seen as a controversial methodology by a small subset of American citizens, yet this subset is extremely vocal. The future of stem cell research looks to be determined by how

Embryonic stem cells research has challenged the moral ethics within human beings simply because the point at which one is considered a “human,” is still under debate and practically incapable to make a decision upon.

In the Declaration on the Production and the Scientific and Therapeutic Use of Human Embryonic Stem Cells, the Pontifical Academy for Life presents the field of stem cell research with a statement regarding the official Roman Catholic position on the moral aspects of acquiring and using human embryonic stem cells. They have declared that it is not morally legitimate to produce or use human embryos as a source of stem cells, nor is it acceptable to use stem cells from cell lines already established. Thus, bringing up the conflicting topic concerned with the point in time in which a human embryo becomes more than a simple mass of cells, but a human individual with a well defined identity. Gerard Magil and William B. Neaves, in their paper Ontological and Ethical Implications of Direct Nuclear Reprogramming has conflicted the Academy’s position on stem cell research with an alternative understanding of adult stem cells. In what follows, I will argue that the Academy does not adequately defend the Church’s standpoint on stem cell research. However, I will also suggest that even if the Church’s position were accepted, this would not provide an adequate solution to the ethical question revolving around stem cell research.

Deontological critics of biotechnology typically argue that the new gene-splicing techniques can involve acts which should never be performed, whatever the consequences. For a proponent of this view, the dangerous element in genetic engineering is not the probability of concrete physical or psychological harm which can ensue from its use, but the likelihood that it can lead people into performing acts which are categorically forbidden. These acts are in some theories linked with the essence of humanity, and in others with the concept of absolute rights or

Can science go too far when it equips man with tools to manipulate life? Some of the underlying ethical dilemmas presented in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein are similar to ones we struggle with today, such as selective abortion. Shelley’s doomed creature mirrors the devastating result of bringing an unwanted offspring into the world, then shirking responsibility for it thereafter. The practice of playing God and choosing who does and who does not “earn” life ultimately results in profound negative moral consequences.