Science and Ethics: Achieving Harmony - Essay Example

?Science and Ethics: Achieving Harmony The battle against ignorance is one that is unceasingly being waged by man as scientists continue to pursue discoveries in their respective fields of expertise. Through the years, however, mankind has benefitted a lot by the victories accumulated in this never-ending battle. Scientists have not only discovered the truths about the objects in nature; they have also developed the means for harnessing the useful characteristics of such objects for man’s own good. Apparently, the improvements that man has achieved in every sphere of his life are all products of scientific research and engineering. Nevertheless, the march of science has never been easy. It has encountered many obstructions that often discourage the scientists from continuing their work. Ironically, the most prominent obstacle is not intellectual backwardness or inadequate technology. Neither is it the lack of determination of the scientists themselves. Instead it is the tendency of man to hold on to traditionally held concepts, which survival is at stake as science advances. The most powerful of these concepts are so-called standards for morality: ethics. There have been countless of times when scientific advances are impeded because of ethical considerations. Lauren Slater’s article on Joe Rosen, Dr. Daedalus, and Barbara Kingsolver’s A Fist in the Eye of God, which is an excerpt from her book Small Wonders deal with the issue articulately. Slater’s account of Joe Rosen’s attitude towards altering man’s physical attributes provides insights on the necessity of scientific advancement for man’s own well-being. On the other hand, Kingsolver explains the logical relationship of science and ethics, pointing out what both should not conflict but should instead compliment each other. Based on the two articles, it would be easy to see the reason why scientific discoveries should be freed the limits set by ethics. At the same time, applying the products of science should be governed by ethical considerations. Nature already exists even before man began to mould his consciousness as a being. This means that man exists separately from other objects in his surroundings. His mind though may process understanding of such objects. Therefore he may develop his own definition of such things but this does not mean that he conceptualized these. With such logic, it is only correct to argue that science is beyond the realm of man’s subjective wants such as ethical standards. However, people have always tended to seek comfort in the conventional and be fearful of the new discoveries. Bearing conventions, they tend to be prejudicial to any scientific advance that may not seem acceptable to ethical standards held for centuries already. Instead of welcoming discoveries and opening their minds in order to analyze further their benefits to man, they are more prone to cite religious and traditional beliefs to criticize these. This is what Rosen experienced when he raised the possibility of introducing changes in the human’s physical appearance so that he can have the desired capabilities. Rosen presents his case with a question: “why are plastic surgeons dedicated only to restoring our current notions of the conventional, as opposed to letting people explore, if they want, what the possibilities are?” (Slater 316) With such statement, Rosen criticizes his colleagues who venture only in purely aesthetic work according the conventional notions of beauty and do not dare to discover more that would result in man’s improved capabilities. Behind this criticism is the concept that convention is subjective, one that is formulated by man without the benefit of affirmation and confirmation of science. Scientific discoveries, on the contrary, are not based on what man wants or wishes but are instead the confirmation of what is already existent or natural. Charles Darwin, for example, did not really provide the world with theories coming straight from his imagination. He merely articulated in the most objective and systematic manner his observation about nature. Evolution is not his invention nor is it anyone else’s. According to Kingsolver, “the little engines of evolution have kept on turning as they have done for millennia, delivering us here and passing on, untouched by politics or what anybody thinks.” (A Fist in the Eye of God) Darwin’s theory of evolution clearly not a perspective that man should either agree or disagree with depending on his ethical views or religious considerations. This theory is just an articulation of how objects beyond man’s control emerge, develop, deteriorate, and eventually, die. Religion or ethical standards definitely do not govern nature. Science, being based on nature, therefore, could not be governed by both. The valid ethical consideration that must govern the science is in its application. Scientific discoveries need to be brought out into the open and be discussed by everyone. This is for the purpose of achieving equality in knowledge. If such discoveries actually negate or invalidated previous notions that are related to ethics, religion, or tradition, all the more that these should be made known to the public. However, ethical questions may indeed be strictly considered in order to make sure that science serves a person’s needs and even wants for as long as this does not become detrimental to the basic rights of others. Kingsolver sums it up accurately when she writes that “ethics can’t influence the outcome of an experiment, but they can serve as a useful adjunct to the questions that get asked in the first place, and to the applications thereafter.” (A Fist in the Eye of God) With such statement, it is clarified that ethics should not be considered as a point of reference in rendering judgment on a scientific discovery. It should not be used in arguing the veracity of the findings. Only another scientific explanation or breakthrough can lead to the invalidation of a previous assertion. Ethics can, however, be employed in determining the appropriate application of such discoveries for man’s benefit and in rejecting its use if it does nothing else but harm man instead. Most scientific discoveries though are prompted by a search, one that is basically inspired by a certain want or need by man, instinctive or otherwise. It is therefore understandable that even altering man’s physical appearance may be warranted if it makes him less capable of surviving or if it allows him to become more effective in his work and it does him and his fellow men good. In her article regarding Joe Rosen’s medical practice, Slater points out that remedying a deformity “allows man to function a fully healthy way in society” in which case “function and form, utilitarianism and aestheticism, joined at the hip, grafted together.” (319) With such premise, it is only right that Rosen insists that he is not just a cosmetic surgeon. After all, ensuring that man is capable of functioning in a normal way, or even extraordinarily for as long as it benefits him and others, is obviously beyond the realm of aestheticism. Both Rosen and Kingsolver, scientists in their respective fields, clearly believe that ethics is not really the antithesis of science if it simply means that the good of all mankind from a utilitarian perspective is guaranteed. In relation to the aforementioned points regarding its treatment in relation to science, it can be said that ethics should be changeable. In fact, it should be changed according to current conditions based on scientific findings. Ethics are primarily based on conventional knowledge. Since conventional knowledge can evolve as influenced by the development of new concepts and the negation, reaffirmation, or adaptation of the old ones, ethics should also be variable. Rosen says that “we have always altered ourselves, for beauty or for power, and so long as we are not causing harm what makes us think we should stop?” (Slater 323) The second part of the statement is actually an appeal to change the conservative viewpoint on ethics. Rosen implies that there are no reasonable obstacles to the advance of science if the basic ethical requirement that this serves man’s well-being is met. Ethics should not be the basis for prejudging science; instead, it should be the other way around. Kingsolver articulates further Rosen’s point of view when she points out that instead of ethics controlling the analysis of scientific discoveries, man should respect the objective character of science. She is “a scientist who thinks it wise to enter the doors of creation not with a lion tamer's whip and chair, but with the reverence humankind has traditionally summoned for entering places of worship: a temple, a mosque, or a cathedral.” (Kingsolver) Reverence or respect should be given to the objectiveness of science and scientific discoveries even if it means altering some existing ethical concepts. History has shown, however, that religious beliefs and ethical standards tend to change while scientific truths remain. Many norms and traditions have vanished or changes with the advance of science. In a modern and civilized world, it can no longer be argued that science is principal while ethical considerations can be secondary. Science cannot be questioned while ethics can be debated on. When it comes to the relationship of science and ethics though, the only time that the latter can assert its primacy is when the former is being used to the detriment of man or even to the benefit of only a few at the expense of others. Asserting on the validity of these perspectives is an imperative since it is the only way that obstacles to the advance of science are removed, paving the way for more discoveries that could result in the continuing improvement of man’s way of life. It is, therefore, necessary to review ethical standards that govern all fields of sciences, whether these are natural, social, or applied. If there should be concepts that are found to be conservative, ethical standards that protect the old way of thinking despite the emergence of new objective realities, then these should be rejected. This is a requirement for the new scientific thoughts to flourish and influence man’s perspectives. To embrace the future and to liberate man from ignorance, ethics must be based on science. As the only unquestionable ethical rule, science should be advanced for the purpose of mankind’s well-being. Works Cited Kingsolver, Barbara. “A Fist in the Eye of God.” Organic Consumers Association. Retrieved from . Slater, Lauren. “Dr. Daedalus.” Harper's Magazine, July 2001. New York, NY: Platinum Periodicals. Read More