With scientific developments on a fast lane the question time and time again rises whether scientific research be politically independent?
In essence, one should say yes, cuz the scientific world is such a community that it wouldn’t do something very harmful cuz it would be against it’s own existence. However, numerous examples are available where technology could fall in the hands of ‘bad-guys’ (whoever they are), and to prevent this science is more and more getting politically controlled.
Only recently I was reading an article about biologists managing to ‘create’ species of bacteria at will, with various modules built in them that can cause them e.g. to be more toxic, to detect miniscule levels of pollution, to be resistant to drugs etc.
Now, if we left this all to scientists I’m sure that community is such that it wouldn’t derail. However, how much influence will politics exert on such developments. Wouldn’t it be that politics doesn’t prevent but rather causes people to think about abusing what science offers them?
Whether you can graft the head of a human being onto the body of a goat does not interest me. IMO, whether you ** CAN ** do it is not particularly relevant or important and it is clear that you ** SHOULD NOT ** do it even if you ** CAN **.
For scientists, whether something ** CAN ** be done is too often more important than whether it ** SHOULD ** be done.
You suggest that "the scientific world is such a community that it wouldn't do something very harmful cuz it would be against it's own existence." There is no such thing as a self-governing and policing "scientific world." There are only scientists and/or people who perceive themselves as scientists. I don't think the Island of Dr. Moreau is really too far-fetched.
While I don't know personally where to draw the lines, the concept of having government/politics/religious leaders/whoever place moral and legal constraints upon the areas that science ought to explore is not a bad one.
While I don't know personally where to draw the lines, the concept of having government/politics/religious leaders/whoever place moral and legal constraints upon the areas that science ought to explore is not a bad one.
[/QUOTE]
actually that sorta happens. most science needs money to be done. major sources of money are NSC/NIH/DARPA/JPL, which in turn have their own agenda and projects. Most research in a lot of disciplines is infact carried out at the behest and under the direction of a specific user/contracting agent in mind.
which is sorta sad, because at the higher level, you become a more successful researcher not just on the basis of your research qualifications, but also on the basis of marketing/sycophancy capabilities. which also narrows the scope of possible research in directions which serve some purpose, usually military or commercial or health or policymaking. dominantly military tho. :-/.
i know one genius scientist who is a legend in fuzzy/neural systems, and his research is severely limited by the fact that he also happens to be a pacifist.
[QUOTE] Originally posted by myvoice: *
Whether you can graft the head of a human being onto the body of a goat does not interest me. IMO, whether you * CAN ** do it is not particularly relevant or important and it is clear that you ** SHOULD NOT ** do it even if you ** CAN **.
For scientists, whether something ** CAN ** be done is too often more important than whether it ** SHOULD ** be done.
[/quote]
in this respect i think we have different opinions: if it was possible I would be looking forward to the prospect of what happens when we actually will do it. I'd rather think that the political control ensures that the public takes such development with pessimism. If you'd leave the scientific community as it is, I'm sure it will be a self-controlled mechanism: Scientists are dependent on each other's work for their own development and success, and unlike politicians their aim is not to lower the other person. Instead usually scientists cooperate to achieve a similar goal. This way I don't see how scientists unbothered by politics could lead to each other's fall.
[quote]
You suggest that "the scientific world is such a community that it wouldn't do something very harmful cuz it would be against it's own existence." There is no such thing as a self-governing and policing "scientific world." There are only scientists and/or people who perceive themselves as scientists. I don't think the Island of Dr. Moreau is really too far-fetched.
While I don't know personally where to draw the lines, the concept of having government/politics/religious leaders/whoever place moral and legal constraints upon the areas that science ought to explore is not a bad one.
[/QUOTE]
Again, I'd say such institution that want to derive control over scientists, be it political, religious, moral, are actually the cause that scientists become skeptic of each other and try to deal with each other as political parties would.
Another example can be taken from the industry: lately research has become economy-driven research instead of the economy being research-driven