Scientific Research & Ethical Considerations

[john grey]

With the depth of knowledge of the human genome and the continuing advances in both chemical and electrical engineering, where should be "line be drawn"? If advancements in biology / medicine, chemistry, etc move further the world confronts a crossroads of determining what is ethical.
Those who have read the novel of Mary Shelly's "Frankenstein" know that there may come times when a perceived agenda for helping people could go drastically wrong.
Due to advances in science we now have explosives that may be manufactured from household chemicals, it's quite conceivable that someone with a modicum of knowledge several Petri dishes, growth culture and a microscope could create a bio-toxin.

Who is best to determine ethical boundaries; science or legislators? One group may know something, another may not. Without limits experimentation may result in tragedy, yet with too much controls, many new helpful agendas may be missed. Who or what should be the arbitrator of ethical formats in science?

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by john grey

With the depth of knowledge of the human genome and the continuing advances in both chemical and electrical engineering, where should be "line be drawn"? If advancements in biology / medicine, chemistry, etc move further the world confronts a crossroads of determining what is ethical.
Those who have read the novel of Mary Shelly's "Frankenstein" know that there may come times when a perceived agenda for helping people could go drastically wrong.
Due to advances in science we now have explosives that may be manufactured from household chemicals, it's quite conceivable that someone with a modicum of knowledge several Petri dishes, growth culture and a microscope could create a bio-toxin.

Who is best to determine ethical boundaries; science or legislators? One group may know something, another may not. Without limits experimentation may result in tragedy, yet with too much controls, many new helpful agendas may be missed. Who or what should be the arbitrator of ethical formats in science?

Firstly, the explosives and biotoxin thing isn't so much a science thing, well, not legit science.

Ethical boundaries tend to be set by both. Scientists and legislators working together.

Ethics also tend to be taken on a case-by-case basis and there are strong ethical guidelines and boundaries in place.

(I'm talking of my experience in the UK system)

[LiquidMidnight]

An interesting topic. I've done a fair amount of social science, and for a lot of the research a social scientist does, he or she has to generally go through an Internal Review Board (IRB), which is a panel of people who critique a proposed research project to determine whether or not participants will be exposed to harm. A lot of it was a result of the Milgram and Zimbardo studies - and yes, Nazi experiments. Ironically, both the Milgram and Zimbardo research have given us some very important and poignant insight into human behavior. While IRBs are necessary and I'd never want a research world where they don't exist, they can sometimes be nitpicky over some of the most seemingly asinine things. Also, the emphasis is on participants having agency about whether or not they wish to participate - in other words, participants self-select - which can cause issues with generalizing sample results to populations (what positivists/post-positivists call external validity and antipositivists/constructivists call transferability).

Of course, conducting research and the results of research are two different things. For example, a body of research in the psychology literature, which was conducted under strict IRB guidelines, could determine different effective methods of persuasion, but that doesn't stop a cult leader could read up and learn how to use this information.

[jady]

Did someone just play a little Bioshock?

[MakiSupaStar]

One interesting tidbit. A corporation can patent anything biological if it involves slight manipulation with the exception being human life.

[iamlowsound]

Originally Posted by LiquidMidnight

An interesting topic. I've done a fair amount of social science, and for a lot of the research a social scientist does, he or she has to generally go through an Internal Review Board (IRB), which is a panel of people who critique a proposed research project to determine whether or not participants will be exposed to harm. A lot of it was a result of the Milgram and Zimbardo studies - and yes, Nazi experiments. Ironically, both the Milgram and Zimbardo research have given us some very important and poignant insight into human behavior. While IRBs are necessary and I'd never want a research world where they don't exist, they can sometimes be nitpicky over some of the most seemingly asinine things. Also, the emphasis is on participants having agency about whether or not they wish to participate - in other words, participants self-select - which can cause issues with generalizing sample results to populations (what positivists/post-positivists call external validity and antipositivists/constructivists call transferability).

Of course, conducting research and the results of research are two different things. For example, a body of research in the psychology literature, which was conducted under strict IRB guidelines, could determine different effective methods of persuasion, but that doesn't mean a cult leader could read up and learn how to use this information.

Almost everything that is know about the body's exposure to cold and the onset stages of hypothermia is from the Nazi experiments.

lowsound

[smperry]

I teach research ethics...but LiquidMidnight covered it, more or less. Other than Nazi experiments, other critical cases include the Tuskeegee experiment, the Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital study, and Willowbrook Hepatitis study...if you don't know about any of those, prepare to have your mind blown.

From these studies, governments and scientists met and formed guidelines, which as mentioned previously, are examined on a case-by-case basis through IRBs. As you might expect, different types of research require different levels of scrutiny.

Other interesting (but not "landmark") studies include the story of Henrietta Lacks and the North Carolina involuntary sterilization program. Edit: and, more on topic...stem cell and cloning research.

Anyone that conducts research should be certified in Human Subjects protocol by NIH. It can be done online in a couple of hours.

[fdeck]

Originally Posted by john grey

Who is best to determine ethical boundaries; science or legislators?

Or... heaven forbid... science-educated legislators!

[Munjibunga]

The OP makes a great point. When I talk to students in 6th to 12th grade, I point out the remarkable technological changes that have occurred in my lifetime. I like to take an iPod, cell phone, TV remote control, hand-held calculator, CD player, and GPS receiver with me and ask them what they all have in common. Typical answers are "they all have batteries, they're all electronic" and things of that sort. The answer I give them is that none of them existed when I was their age. Ditto PCs and Macs.

So those are changes that have occurred just in my lifetime. They will be faced with the challenges of science combining genetic manipulation with computing. I think society is already having problems reconciling existing new technologies with social mores. The challenges the immediate future genration will face could be quite daunting.

The decline in students' interest in technical subjects will make them even more likely to live their lives in an intellectual vacuum, electing instead to rely on mysticism to cope with social dilemmas resulting from overwhelming technical advances. This opens the pathway for even more soothsayers to gain power over the masses.

It also could lead to yet another new class of power-mongers - those who use technical means to dominate others. I'm thankful that my daughter's favorite subjects are science and history. I hope she stays interested, because I'd hate for her to be one of those left behind.

As much as knowledge is power, lack of knowledge is weakness and vulnerability. The world will be a very different place in as little as 50 years. I just hope that society can keep up with technological change. I'm not optimistic. Indications are that a very large segment of the population is already disenfranchised. Let's hope those who ride the wave of technology to power are benevolent (don't get your hopes up too high).

I'm not one of these conspiracy theorists. Look around you.

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by smperry

...stem cell and cloning research

There are very strict guidelines on using stem cells over here. Some of my research makes use of stem cells. We aren't legally allowed to culture the cells we use, have to get them from another institute.

Likewise, there are strict ethical guidelines surrounding the use of animals/animal studies too.

Originally Posted by Munjibunga

The decline in students' interest in technical subjects will make them even more likely to live their lives in an intellectual vacuum, electing instead to rely on mysticism to cope with social dilemmas resulting from overwhelming technical advances. This opens the pathway for even more soothsayers to gain power over the masses.

It also could lead to yet another new class of power-mongers - those who use technical means to dominate others. I'm thankful that my daughter's favorite subjects are science and history. I hope she stays interested, because I'd hate for her to be one of those left behind.

As much as knowledge is power, lack of knowledge is weakness and vulnerability. The world will be a very different place in as little as 50 years. I just hope that society can keep up with technological change. I'm not optimistic. Indications are that a very large segment of the population is already disenfranchised. Let's hope those who ride the wave of technology to power are benevolent (don't get your hopes up too high).

I'm not one of these conspiracy theorists. Look around you.

I don't know about the US, but over here, the sciences are more popular than ever. People basically crawling over each other to try and get places.

[john grey]

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

Firstly, the explosives and biotoxin thing isn't so much a science thing, well, not legit science.

I would think energetic peroxides via liquid rocket fuel & determinations of air-borne anthrax is herd populations legitimate science. The facts that these phenomenon could be misused or used to destructive ends does not negate their legitimate origins.

Many (if not most) "high-tech" military weapons began as devices other than weapons designs.

[Chebass88]

Originally Posted by Munjibunga

...

The decline in students' interest in technical subjects will make them even more likely to live their lives in an intellectual vacuum, electing instead to rely on mysticism to cope with social dilemmas resulting from overwhelming technical advances. This opens the pathway for even more soothsayers to gain power over the masses.

It also could lead to yet another new class of power-mongers - those who use technical means to dominate others. I'm thankful that my daughter's favorite subjects are science and history. I hope she stays interested, because I'd hate for her to be one of those left behind.

As much as knowledge is power, lack of knowledge is weakness and vulnerability. The world will be a very different place in as little as 50 years. I just hope that society can keep up with technological change. I'm not optimistic. Indications are that a very large segment of the population is already disenfranchised. Let's hope those who ride the wave of technology to power are benevolent (don't get your hopes up too high).

I'm not one of these conspiracy theorists. Look around you.

They are disenfranchised because they actively CHOOSE to be disenfranchised. It requires an active mind and a dedicated pursuit to be competent technically. It is far easier to let one's mind go and be pacified with the latest reality TV show. Thinking is hard work, and is avoided when possible.

So, if they place themselves in that situation - through the active decision to seek the pacifier - why should the technically competent shoulder the burden?

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by john grey

I would think energetic peroxides via liquid rocket fuel & determinations of air-borne anthrax is herd populations legitimate science. The facts that these phenomenon could be misused or used to destructive ends does not negate their legitimate origins.

Many (if not most) "high-tech" military weapons began as devices other than weapons designs.

You are stretching the bounds of what people tend to class as science. People were able to do similar things long before they knew why they were able to do it.

Dunno about the military weapons bit either, you'd be surprised how much military tech has advanced non-military tech!

Do you have any history in science? Have you looked up the ethical guidelines that are in place (not that your pocket terrorist needs to worry about such things).

People have been fannying around with stuff for longer than our known history. Those examples you gave don't really have anything to do with the ethics of science IMO.

[SonofJud]

The Henrietta Lacks one was interesting, I had never heard of that(the rest were just depressing things I had known about). It would have been cool if she had been able to live and see how much good she had helped do for the world.

[SonofJud]

On a different note, it is pretty sickening the way that some experimenters got away with what they did. I guess at the time it was hard to know what to do, given the situation with the Soviet Union, but it would have much more satisfying if people like Shiro Ishii ended their lives in a noose instead of free men.

[tZer]

Originally Posted by Chebass88

They are disenfranchised because they actively CHOOSE to be disenfranchised. It requires an active mind and a dedicated pursuit to be competent technically. It is far easier to let one's mind go and be pacified with the latest reality TV show. Thinking is hard work, and is avoided when possible.

So, if they place themselves in that situation - through the active decision to seek the pacifier - why should the technically competent shoulder the burden?

Well - that's one way to look at it. Another is that many are disenfranchised due to lack of access to what's necessary to thrive - money, education, opportunity, power, etc...

There are many of the 'enfranchised' who, in spite of their active minds, only seek self-gratification out of what they can acquire through their easy access to such resources - money, education, power, etc... And because of the availability of these basic thrive-worthy resources to them, make it so that only those who have access to power, money, education, etc... can get access to power, money, education, etc...

It's far easier to demonize the disenfranchised than it is to consider that the behavior of a few very powerful people may actually be greatly responsible for why so many are actually disenfranchised.

The point of view you express regrading who, how and why the "disenfranchised" are as such is ironically arrived at via the exact same mental laziness you ascribe to "the disenfranchised".

[Tituscrow]

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

There are very strict guidelines on using stem cells over here. Some of my research makes use of stem cells. We aren't legally allowed to culture the cells we use, have to get them from another institute.

Likewise, there are strict ethical guidelines surrounding the use of animals/animal studies too.

I don't know about the US, but over here, the sciences are more popular than ever. People basically crawling over each other to try and get places.

Agreed. I've been a Physics teacher for 20 years and I've seen the numbers in my classes swell over the last decade. Every year the vast majority of my A level students go on to do science based degrees at proper universities (Russell Group) and I am continually updated with how ex-students have fared. Competition for places is at a premium and even though the prospect of graduating with a five figure debt can be terribly intimidating, part of my job is to get these kids to have the foresight to look across an entire career and think long term.

My daughter is 7 in January and I am pretty sure that the job she ends up in probably hasn't even been 'invented' yet.

In terms of ethics, we are duty bound by the course specifications to address 'moral, spiritual, cultural and ethical' issues around science and it's place in society. This manifests itself as perhaps a qualitative question on an exam paper about, say, the issues around nuclear energy or the advantages and disadvantages of renewable and non-renewable fuels. However, I think the biology department have more scope for ethical debates

[Ziltoid]

[mom hubris]

If you have specific questions about ethics related to the Canadian health system I can ask my mom for you, she's an expert in the field.


[\mom hubris]

[Chebass88]

I interpreted Munji's post about being disenfranchised with respect to technology, with the reference to an intellectual vacuum. That is what I was referencing in my post. There are so many free resources a person can utilize to gain some competence in technological areas. I'm not saying everyone has to be a rocket scientist or splicing genes on a benchtop, but they can take a book out of the local library on almost any topic and read it for free. Did I mention the internet, also available at most public libraries? It just requires a tremendous amount of discipline, and putting yourself in an area conducive to learning. IMO, this is an active decision.

[tZer]

Originally Posted by Chebass88

I interpreted Munji's post about being disenfranchised with respect to technology, with the reference to an intellectual vacuum. That is what I was referencing in my post. There are so many free resources a person can utilize to gain some competence in technological areas. I'm not saying everyone has to be a rocket scientist or splicing genes on a benchtop, but they can take a book out of the local library on almost any topic and read it for free. Did I mention the internet, also available at most public libraries? It just requires a tremendous amount of discipline, and putting yourself in an area conducive to learning. IMO, this is an active decision.

I get your point - I don't agree at all but this all too far off topic, so I am going to drop it.