Should Science Have limits?
After reading on GMO’s, stem cell research and artificial intelligence I believe my stance on scientific inquiry still stands. Scientific inquiry should have limits, but these limits should be to control extremes that would be absolutely outside of morality or dangerous and not beneficial.
GMO’s, stem cell research and artificial intelligence all align with my research on cloning and the advancements that can be made in each field to better mankind while being within reason of morality and not bordering extremes. GMO’s may be seen as problematic and many groups believe that “sufficient testing has not been conducted” and that “A study published in 2009 in the International Journal of Biological Sciences revealed adverse effects of GM corn on rats’ livers and kidneys, particularly male rats”(Opposing Viewpoints n/a). However, along with the majority of scientists we see that the advantages far outweigh the problems because there are none. Studies have shown that it does not hurt humans and the modifications produce advantages that benefit us and our environment.
In stem cell research, people believe that it is immoral to use embryonic stem cells because of “people arguing that such research is unethical” and that they do not believe in the “destruction of the blastocyst or embryo” (Opposing Viewpoints n/a). Research so far has been done on leftover embryos for in vitro fertilization, but it is still wrong to do it when it is on never to be used embryos. The uses for stem cells could be endless saving many more lives than the embryos needed to research. Without this barrier of human ignorance we could be years ahead on this technology.
Lastly, Artificial intelligence is very interesting because our only fear of it comes from Science fiction movies and that “it is suggested that their progeny will replace humankind”(Opposing Viewpoints n/a). Actually, it is because we believe that we could not make the AI more capable than a three year old. Yet, if we were able to make a capable AI people still question whether it would be ethical or not. Within my belief of scientific inquiry I believe that if a scientist takes the precautions and removes all chance of extremes that we could very much so use AI’s to accomplish tasks that could change the way we live.Scientific inquiry should have limits, but these limits should be to control extremes that would be absolutely outside of morality or dangerous and not beneficial.
In the book Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. This author being centuries old writes on touchy topics and poses questions to her readers that nobody would dare to do at the time. She does this to create her riveting book and provoke thought on to the reader that makes this book more than just a story. She poses strong questions on scientific inquiry and its limits by creating this book and she does such a great job in doing this that she makes everyone wonder. Should science have limits? This is a particularly standard question when the topic of cloning is brought up and it's is quite relevant. Should cloning have scientific limits?
To begin, in my opinion, scientific inquiry should have limits, but these limits should be to control extremes that would be absolutely outside of morality. This is so science would not be out of hand, but still have the ability to take humanity to innovation. We need innovation to survive with all of the problems that we have and that we are creating and for the most part the sacrifices that we make for science are worth it in the big picture of things. For example, the cloning process of Dolly the goat may have been short lived, but her impact on our outlooks in research of genetics and biology far outweighs the consequences of her shorter life, and Dolly was euthanized so that she would have no pain. Some believe that this study crossed the line on scientific inquiry, but it was nowhere near extreme and handled the process professionally and with morals in mind. We cannot take our morals and allow them to be inflated to the point that they cast a shadow over what could be achieved in the world that could take the human race to new heights. However, it is unethical to believe that there should not be any morals to scientific inquiry. There should still be limits that keep us from becoming the monsters that Mary Shelley creates and keep us learning for the future because we don't know what it holds.
However, you may think that in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein that the creation of this monster lead to murder and heartbreak. Victor Frankenstein even contemplates it and believes that his “ father was not scientific, and I was left to struggle with a child's blindness, added to a student's thirst for knowledge.” This piece of Frankenstein shows how morals are still a big piece of this and his lack of morals ended up in a big disappointment. Yet, if Victor Frankenstein took the right precautions in his scientific inquiry this fate could have been abated. It comes down to the fact that his morals weren’t in check and that he had too much thirst for knowledge and did not take the right precautions to explore the science he wanted to creating this slippery slope of disaster. In the end, the small limits that I propose for scientific inquiry would have been enough to stop this from happening yet allow Victor Frankenstein to follow his exploration of science.
Lastly, cloning is a very good angle to think about when this question is brought up. Dolly the goat was briefly brought up, but there is more depth to the story. It is a very common story that is used in the science community to challenge cloning. From an article in Cengage learning, the author speaks of the surrogate mother that “gave birth to Dolly, a lamb genetically identical to the sheep that had provided the original cell” (Gale group n/a). Again, they touch base on the fact that it was “cruel” to do this to an animal, but never on how they tried to make it as least cruel as possible and the scientific gains that we were able to produce from this study. Stem cells are also a big topic in cloning and the scientist Ariana Eunjung Cha covered this research in her opposing viewpoints article on stem cell research. A new book called “ The Journal Cell Stem Cell, is a controversial advance likely to reopen the debate over human cloning” (Cha n/a). So, cloning is always developing and transforming which is what we need in science and views on morality versus outcome should change too.
In conclusion, Mary Shelley poses strong questions on scientific inquiry and its limits by creating this book and she does such a great job in doing this that she makes everyone wonder. Should science have limits? This is a particularly standard question when the topic of cloning is brought up and it's is quite relevant. Should cloning have scientific limits? The answer to this is yes it should, but they should not hinder the progress of important scientific processes that could lead to important breakthroughs.
"Artificial Intelligence." Gale Group. Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, n.d. Web. 13 Mar. 2016
Cha, Ariana Eunjung. "New Procedure Clones Stem Cells from Adults." Gale Group. The Washington Post, n.d. Web. 13 Mar. 2016.
"Cloning." Gale Group. Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, n.d. Web. 13 Mar. 2016.
"Genetically Modified Food." Gale Group. Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, n.d. Web. 13 Mar. 2016.
"Stem Cells." Gale Group. Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, n.d. Web. 13 Mar. 2016.