This afternoon I read about seven medical experiments that medical folks secretly wish they could do. I love the little para in Wired Magazine that's part of the intro.
Most scientists will assure you that ethical rules never hinder good research—that there’s always a virtuous path to testing any important hypothesis. But ask them in private, perhaps after a drink or three, and they’ll confess that the dark side does have its appeal. Bend the rules and some of our deepest scientific conundrums could be elucidated or even resolved: nature versus nurture, the causes of mental illness, even the mystery of how humans evolved from monkeys. These discoveries are just sitting out there, waiting for us to find them, if only we were willing to lose our souls.
What is at the bottom of the nature vs nurture argument, I contend, is an answer not worth pursuing. Because why? Because ethically speaking, we already understand what Aldous Huxley made abundantly clear in 1931, of the fundamental injustice of eugenics. And we should understand that 'universal' health care need only provide the basics to be of great benefit to society, despite the ridiculous overreach America will soon be paying for.
That's the essential point.
I want to try a perverse point, which is that the rich and powerful will go burn babies alive if they're convinced it will prolong their wealth, power, life etc. So the scientist might as well go whole hog. You see, I distrust the ethics of the mechanism that brings the fruits of such knowledge to the masses with its false modesty and utilitarian promises.
Recent Comments