Ethics in Science Free Essays

Should scientist have a common ethics code like the oath of Hippocrates for the doctors, or similar to the oath the lawyers give towards society? In order to answer this question it is necessary to examine the meaning of the words Science and Ethics, first independently and then in the context of society. The first step in this process is to define each word. According to Wikipedia â€Å"†¦science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research†[1]. We will write a custom essay sample on Ethics in Science or any similar topic only for you Order Now Ethics on the other hand â€Å"†¦ is the attempt to arrive at general moral standards that tell us [people] how to judge right from wrong, or good from bad, and how to live moral lives†[2]. The above interpretations are, at first glance, not connected to each other. Science is a process, a system, a way to acquire knowledge about the physical world around us. Science, in its pure form, does not have sides, good or bad, positive or negative. Science, one could propose, is the force of understanding. Ethics on the other hand, is a set of criteria, created by man, to define a guideline to his existence. A guideline between what should and what should not occur. Hence the question must be transformed into â€Å"Should scientists be moral? Do scientists need ethical guidelines, as part of a society, in order to function? † A step further could be â€Å"Under which conditions would a scientific morality be objective? † There have been many proposals for the creation of a universal code of ethics for scientists. Sir Arnold Wolfendale[3] proposed â€Å"I will not, knowingly, carry out research which is to the detriment of humanity. If, in the event, research to which I have contributed is used, in my view, to the detriment of the human race then I shall work actively to combat its development†. In his statement Sir Wolfendale remains moral to his ethics code by proposing to combat any ill applications of his discoveries. But if we put the above statement in the context of war, society could argue that it would not be ethically ill to apply science against an evil enemy for maters of survival[4], thus Sir Wolfendale’s denial would be unethical towards society. Which ethical values are paramount? The individual’s or society’s? In modern days there has been a great deal of ambiguity on a number of scientific fields. The advances of science in genetics and molecular biology have created stress between scientists and society. Cloning is one example. A scientist could argue that by pursuing the creation of a living creature through cloning, a major advancement in our understanding of the mechanics behind living organisms could be gained. On the other hand, a large portion of society is against such attempts, often labelling them immoral and unethical. Again the dilemma, who’s ethics is paramount? The interaction between Ethics and Science can also be examined in another context. In the last years, many scientist have expressed concern about unethical behaviour within the scientific society. Many notable individuals have pointed out that scientists should be more truthful and honest about their findings. That they should be inclined to share their discoveries with the rest of the community, keeping as the paramount goal, the advancement of this community in general. The reasons for these ethical missteps vary. In most cases the denominator of the problem is the commercialisation of science and the financial battles that lurk in the background. A final point of view that should be considered is the human nature. Humans, over the centuries, have always exhibited several qualities that orbit around the concept of self-interest. Although people would spend huge periods of time philosophising in the virtues of morality every day life teaches different lessons. People tend to be self-centred, prideful, self-important and indifferent towards the next person. Sir Isaac Newton is one of the most famous scientists and visionaries of the last three hundred years. Nevertheless, he was notorious for his somewhat eccentric behaviour towards other scientists. A preliminary conclusion would have to address the conditions under which an ethical code should be implemented. Science, in comparison with ethics, is a global concept. The scientific community is in essence a global society. Ethics is not! Ethics depends on the principals and ideas of the society it resides. A vivid example could be derived when one examines the sociological beliefs during the â€Å"upper hide† in South Africa. In that society what was write and what was wrong could be differently defined in comparison with London, England. An ethical scientific code would not similar in both countries. Another point which needs to be taken under consideration would be that the ethical code should be self-aware of the conditions under which it’s being created. An all open scientific society with no boundaries and freedom of exchange of information might be highly noble but would be out of synchronicity with modern reality. This would probably lead to its dismissal. The scientist â€Å"lawgiver† must be aware of what is and what is not plausible. If one would suggest that science should detach itself from the market mechanism due to the negative influence, one would find himself outcast. So what is the perfect recipe? What should be included and what should not? Is an ethics code necessary? If history can teach us something, it is that people throughout the centuries needed guidance in one form or the other. An ethics scientific code is definitely a positive step. But the code has to take into account a’ lot. The core of the code should be science. The code will address the practitioners of science and their actions but should not damage science in the process. Morality is a social issue. Any code is powerless if the society in which it resides does not support and endorse moral values. To summarise an ethics science code is desirable in the context of an active moral society. How to cite Ethics in Science, Essay examples Ethics In Science Free Essays Ethics is the difference between what is morally right and wrong. A scientist has to know the ethical consequences of their work. The scientist Is responsible. We will write a custom essay sample on Ethics In Science or any similar topic only for you Order Now There are many consequences Like the harm and amount of risk and benefit in science. There are also ethical procedures Involved In science. These procedures Include promoting alms of research and knowledge. These procedures help ensure accountability. The big difference Is that ethics and laws are not the same. Laws are established rules while ethics is the morals of a culture. Ethics is important because it makes sure that cooperation and joint endeavors run smoothly. One example of ethics in science is stem cell research. Stem Cell Research is when undeveloped cells are molded from adult cells, embryonic cells, and cord cells to finally be created as other cells. Stem Cell research is used as a treatment for such problems as heart disease, diabetes leukemia, and etc. One pro is that adult stem cells are a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues. Researching and using these stem cells may lead to progress and future discoveries in the future. That is the good part, but there are also some cons. These cons mostly got to do with embryonic stem cells. Some stem ells are taken from embryonic stem cells. The problem Is that scientists find extraction more Important than the misery of destroying a human being. Clients such as Dry. Xavier Lopez said â€Å"This Is the future of medicine, and I want to be a part of it. † Now, Stem Cells hold great potential in helping many human diseases and conditions. Stem cells are able to reproduce without causing damage. These are the ethics of stem cell research. Stem Cells overall can both save and destroy people. In the article, â€Å"Scientists Fabricate Rudimentary Human Livers† by Gina Kola speaks about scientists who have created a human liver from stem cells. This is good because it is a monumental achievement in science. This human liver is an example that stem cells can help us live for a long time. This was done by transferring liver buds into mice. Liver buds were put on the brain and the abdomen. The liver buds functioned Like human livers. Dry. Kenneth Caret states that â€Å"They were letting nature do Its thing rather than trying to conceive of what the right signals might be. This Is an ethical example because It shows that there are some major signs that stem cells are evolving. The creation of this liver is able to replenish organs. This is good because it shows that this liver is able to function. Dry. Take mentions that they can try to take it to the clinic and treat it on people whose liver have stopped working. This is a benefit because people will be able to get s ome part of their body back. â€Å"This is a major breakthrough of monumental significance† said Dry. Hilled Tibias. In the article, â€Å"Stem Cell Treatments Overtake Science† by Laura Bell talks about how Stem Cells are taking over the medical and scientific world. Maggie Allies, a victim of emphysema found out that adult stem cells were promoted as a cure for everything. † Doctors at the Regenerative Medicine Institute are hoping to take 130 million stem cells and transfer them to her lungs. These stem cells are helping her because the actual doctors could not. Stem Cells have risen because customers Like Maggie are hoping for a â€Å"personal miracle. † Stem Cells are flourishing In TIJuana. This is a big benefit because are about 20 clinics giving adult stem cell therapy to on it. He follows up with it by saying â€Å"It was eye-opening† and â€Å"This is the future of medicine, and I want to be a part of it. † This is good because Dry. Lopez is being ireful and has good intentions. He follows his ideas up by saying that Mexico lacks the government that the USA has. These clinical trials of stem cells are within the accepted structure of the Tijuana government. This is good the government in Tijuana is watching over these trials. Dry. Lopez finally says that â€Å"I’m very proud of what we are doing. † Japanese researchers have created a human liver from human stem cells. Gina Kola covers this story in her article, â€Å"Scientists Fabricate Rudimentary Human Livers. † To create a human liver from stem cells can always cause pros and cons in the scientific field. The cons for creating this human liver are that it’s more of an early fetal version. This is bad because it cannot develop into a full human liver. Sadly, the liver cells did not take up space in the body. It did not develop any blood supplies or systems. This is bad because it can damage a person’s body. Anyways, other researchers tried recreating this human liver. These other livers would eventually die and would not function. If this liver fails, many things start to happen such as the abdominal area becomes filled with fluid. Eventually, a disease will begin. This is the negative of the human liver cell. This is why it will never be treated on humans. Another bad thing is that this human liver in a three- dimensional structure. Thus, it will never be put into the human body. The article also mentions that Dry. Caret has said, â€Å"We don’t know if the cells will grow out of control or will poop out. † These researchers such as Dry. Tibias hopes they soon succeed. â€Å"It really has the potential to undermine the legitimacy of the whole world†, says Dry. Hashes Eased of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. Dry. Eased is right because there a lot of controversial ideas surrounding the SE of stem cells. One problem at the Regenerative Medicine Institute is that stem cells cannot regenerate no matter where they are placed. These safety precautions still remain unanswered. This is seriously bad because the patient would not be able to get that kind of service again for too much money. This is also an economical problem because it costs a lot of money to work on these patients. Scientists now fear the consequences of their work because of the growing number of clinics. This brings up the idea that there is responsibility, risk, and benefit involved in having ethics in science. In the article, a pathologist is mentioned to had illegally processed and shipped stem cells without permission from the F. D. A. This is a major problem because without these cells being checked these lives are in danger. Dry. Sedan follows his idea up by saying that patients don’t know the difference between science and conning. This is bad because people can be cheated by researchers and they will be affected. Dry. Lopez, the founder of the institute says that he works with the Mexican authorities to follow the uniform standards. In the end, Stem Cells can find a way to destroy us. There are many consequences like the harm and amount of risk and benefit in science. This is shown in both articles. These stories show that scientists are trying to help the world, but not intentionally destroying it. Stem Cells hold great potential in saving human lives. This is the ethics of stem cell research. The human liver is a great achievement in the field of science, but it cannot function. People can recreate these discoveries. Stem Cells are helping people unlike the they are changing the world. Stem Cells might not be fix some things, but soon it will and will be amazing. This is the good and bad of ethics in stem cells. How to cite Ethics In Science, Papers