Philosophy of science/technology

S

Slacker47

Paint it Black
Registered Senior Member
In my philosophy class, we were discussing the complete decoding of the human genome. Now this could go into science ethics or politics, but I wanted a different perspective, or something....

We went over the implications on society, and such forth, and we came to the conclusion that it should be used strictly in scientific research and should not be used publicly.

Why? you ask. Well, if insurance companies got your life span, genetic diseases, diseases that you could pass down, etc... life would go to shit. There are other things as well, but I personally believe that science is going too far these days.

So, with this example, along with others that are similiar, should science that is only used for public purposes be stopped? This includes cosmetics, animal testing.

Anyway, I want to discuss the philosophy behind scientific approach, not the morality. Science has brought us a long way, but at the cost of countless animals and vegetation. So is science the way to go for the next milennia, or should science focus on more extreme matters (like astrophysics).
 
This is still hard to explain....

From early man, we grew above other animals because we had a slightly greater advantage from evolution, but as humans continued to grow, the earth got worse and worse.

Where would we be without the wheel, the printing press, weapondry? Well, we would probably be striving to survive just like every other animal on the planet. So, why have technology that brings so much harm to everything?
 
Originally posted by Slacker47
In my philosophy class, we were discussing the complete decoding of the human genome. Now this could go into science ethics or politics, but I wanted a different perspective, or something....

We went over the implications on society, and such forth, and we came to the conclusion that it should be used strictly in scientific research and should not be used publicly.

Why? you ask. Well, if insurance companies got your life span, genetic diseases, diseases that you could pass down, etc... life would go to shit. There are other things as well, but I personally believe that science is going too far these days.

So, with this example, along with others that are similiar, should science that is only used for public purposes be stopped? This includes cosmetics, animal testing.

Anyway, I want to discuss the philosophy behind scientific approach, not the morality. Science has brought us a long way, but at the cost of countless animals and vegetation. So is science the way to go for the next milennia, or should science focus on more extreme matters (like astrophysics).
Click to expand...

With all due respect, Slacker, your information doesn't seem to be quite accurate. When we unlocked the human genome, we didn't unlock the genetic structure of every single human being on the planet, nor did we come up with the technology to do so, we meerly finished the project of maping out the entire genome of ONE human being. Given, if were were to start on another it wouldn't take us quite so long, we'd be a little quicker about it this time around, but still that only brings the number up to two.
 
I am aware of that, but I was referring to the future. I guess I didnt say that. Truely, if we discover that much knowledge, only evil can result. Technology has created all of the large-scale evil that has come from humanity. So, I say: slow down and a clear view of the final goal in all of the technology.
 
Originally posted by Slacker47
I am aware of that, but I was referring to the future. I guess I didnt say that. Truely, if we discover that much knowledge, only evil can result. Technology has created all of the large-scale evil that has come from humanity. So, I say: slow down and a clear view of the final goal in all of the technology.
Click to expand...

they say this after every new introduction of a technological/scientific concept. Something new will pop up over the horizon in a few years or decades and then we will forget about this and start worrying about the new problem.
 
Below is a brief survey of some ways in which the use of animals in science may be refined, reduced or replaced. For more information on specific questions, contact us and/or check out some of the other websites listed under useful links

The concept of alternatives covers more than the replacement of animal use. In addition to replacement alternatives, there are two other categories, namely reduction and refinement alternatives. This viewpoint is based on the principle of the Three Rs which was defined by William Russell and Rex Burch in 1959 in their book Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. The Three Rs provide a strategy for a rational and stepwise approach to minimising animal use and the suffering caused by this use, without compromising the quality of the scientific work being done, while having, as the ultimate aim, total replacement of animal models with non-animal alternatives. The full text of Russell and Burch's book can be viewed on the Altweb site of the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

http://www.frame.org.uk/Alternat.htm
 
Office for Civil Rights - HIPAA

The privacy provisions of the federal law, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), apply to health information created or maintained by health care providers who engage in certain electronic transactions, health plans, and health care clearinghouses. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has issued the regulation,"Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information," applicable to entities covered by HIPAA. The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is the Departmental component responsible for implementing and enforcing the privacy regulation. (See the Statement of Delegation of Authority to the Office for Civil Rights, as published in the Federal Register on December 28, 2000 - HTML / Text / PDF)

Final Rule Published in the Federal Register (65 FR 82462): December 28, 2000
Rule Effective Date: April 14, 2001
Rule Compliance Date: April 14, 2003 (April 14, 2004, for small health plans)

Covered entities (certain health care providers, health plans, and health care clearinghouses) are not required to comply with the HIPAA Privacy Rule until the compliance date. Covered entities may, of course, voluntarily protect patient health information before this date.

On August 14, 2002, the Final Modifications to the Privacy Rule were published in the Federal Register. www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/finalreg.html

HHS' National Conferences on the HIPAA Privacy Rule

How Private Is My Medical Information?
 
Originally posted by Slacker47
We went over the implications on society, and such forth, and we came to the conclusion that it should be used strictly in scientific research and should not be used publicly.

Why? you ask. Well, if insurance companies got your life span, genetic diseases, diseases that you could pass down, etc... life would go to shit. There are other things as well, but I personally believe that science is going too far these days.
Click to expand...

"publicly" does not mean that you are free to do whatever you wish. there are regulations that govern behaviour in order to maintain a stable society. if current cultural mores do not jive with cloning supermen............

science is not going far enough. artificial limitations, constrictions of religion, cultural prejudices, all impede rational scientific endeavours.
 
science is not going far enough. artificial limitations, constrictions of religion, cultural prejudices, all impede rational scientific endeavours.
Click to expand...

These are the things that I want to get a clear view of. Science seems to have directed too much attention to the immediate population. Science needs to focus on things that matter now AND in the future, not new forms of make-up, etc...

These are the things that need to be resolved. There needs to be scientists who can relay findings findings to the public. There are so many scientific reasons why racism is entirely pointless. So, why do we waste precious resources on wireless keyboards, etc...

My friend sent me this link about two months ago with the most useless Japanese inventions of last year. It was so sad. They had all of these pointless objects that served no function. Science needs to direct itself to a common goal.
 
Genetics is going to be very controversial in the future, and it will cause some problems, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't use it. The benefits for society are very strong. Are you saying that we shouldn't try to improve people genetically? That we shouldn't try to cure their genetic disorders, ect?

True, insurance companies could discriminate against you based on genetics, but the insurance business will have to change, like other things are going to change. Should people be discriminated based on their genetics? If they are genetically weak or stupid, should they be turned down for a job? Hard question to answer. We don't know for sure which influences your abilities more, genes or the environment. It's an unfair world. Certain people have had better environmental things(prep schools) or some people have great genes.(geniuses)
 
Originally posted by Slacker47
Science needs to direct itself to a common goal.
Click to expand...

THE FEDERAL ROLE
  • During the 1980s that began to change, as such programs as the multiagency Small Business Innovation Research program, the Advanced Technology Program of the Department of Commerce, the SEMATECH consortium of U.S.-based semiconductor companies and the Department of Defense, and the Engineering Research Centers program of the National Science Foundation were launched. Taken as a whole, however, these civilian technology programs did not come close to the size of the federal investment in defense, health, energy, or space-related R&D.
  • One set of changes was aimed at easing the flow of science and technology from government laboratories and academe to industry. The federal government also instituted a temporary tax credit for industrial R&D, which has been renewed periodically. Finally, a number of changes have occurred in regulatory, trade, and competition policies.
  • The federal role in science and technology, although subsidiary to industry's, is no less crucial. The federal government will continue to carry the primary responsibility for funding fundamental research in science and technology, including sustaining the infrastructure of institutions and facilities that perform excellent research and play a critical role in educating and training the next generation of scientists and engineers.

STATE, LOCAL, AND REGIONAL INITIATIVES
  • The ability to capitalize on university resources has evidenced itself over the last few decades in Massachusetts's Route 128 complex, California's Silicon Valley, and North Carolina's Research Triangle Park (RTP). More recently, however, with the advent of severe economic downturns in the former "Rust Belt" states during the 1970s and 1980s, more and more attention was focused on state governments' need to use partnerships between sectors to create new bases for growth. Typical of these programs were Pennsylvania's Ben Franklin Partnership and Ohio's Thomas Edison Program, each designed to use state funds as a catalyst to mobilize university and entrepreneurial resources to create new sources of economic growth and revitalize existing industries. Those pioneering efforts provided a model for other states, localities, and regions to follow. Today, most states are undertaking some partnership activities in science and technology as are many localities and regions, including metropolitan areas (Coburn, 1995).

National Forum on Harnessing Science and Technology for America's Economic Future


as for private enterprise, if i they buy it, i will sell it (within reason)

;)
 
i havent read this thread but wouldnt it be better suited in genral if u dont want an ethical responce???

up to you
 
Originally posted by Asguard
i havent read this thread but wouldnt it be better suited in genral if u dont want an ethical responce???

up to you
Click to expand...

Agreed - the problem is that 'philosophy of science/technology' almost invariably means 'ethics' - the other branches of philosophy don't get discussed much - other than 'natural philosophy', i.e physics.

Cheers,

Ron
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top