Choo Ying Jie 3i104 27 April 2014

1. Science and ethics must exist in tandem. Discuss.

To create or not to create, that is the question. How much would you sacrifice for a
cure to cancer? A life? Two? As we enter new advents and frontiers in the history of
science, a significant questions arises: How far are we really willing to go for
science? Do we discard ethics completely in our pursuit of greater knowledge? Do we
state that the greater good ultimately outweighs the casualties? I feel that ultimately,
in order to truly benefit mankind, science and ethics must exist in tandem.

For starters, the presence of ethics is a necessity in science because it is obligatory to
ensure that science is not misused. By virtue of the fact that science is co-established
by several authors and is continually refined over the years, it can be concluded that
science belongs to no one man it belongs to all of us. Hence, to quote Uncle Bens
all-too-known tagline from Marvels illustrious Spider-Man series, With great
power, comes great responsibility. There is a responsibility that comes with the
privilege of learning science to ensure that it is used in the sensibly and positively and
benefits society.

Turn the clock back 6 decades and youll find yourself in the thick of one of historys
greatest anguishes. The atomic bomb, dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in late
1945, is a pertinent example of how science can be directed at destruction. The
creation and use of these machines of death have thieved an overwhelming estimate
of 150,000 246,000 innocents would affect many more to come, having condemned
the survivors and their descendants to a life shaped by the everlasting effects of
nuclear radiation. This incident testifies to the importance of prudence (in the form of
bioethics) in the study of science. Above all else, we need to see to it that the limitless
potential offered by science is not exploited for harmful or selfish intentions.

Apart from the misuse of science, we must also make sure that scientific
achievements do not come at an overwhelming expense. This can be achieved by
binding science to ethics. Evidently, we pay for all things one way or another. The
currency for the trade-off could be a few drops of blood today, tomorrow, a life, and
escalate into genocide the day after all in the name of science. To prevent our lust for
knowledge and the promise of betterment from clouding our eyes to the present, we
must not sacrifice today in our search for solutions to tomorrows problems. A
pyrrhic victory should be averted at all costs.

In the X-Men saga, countless lives were sacrificed in the attempt to utilise the X Gene
to create the ultimate biological weapon (which would later be taken on Wolverine).
The situation is almost a direct allusion to (and likely influenced by) the history of
animal experimentation in science. Developed and practiced since as early as 600-
300BC, animal experimentation has had a long culture of brutality (such as in ancient
practices of systemic vivisection) and a lack of respect for the sanctity of life. The
practice treats animals as disposable expedients for evolution and hence forcibly
ropes animals into our selfish quest for knowledge, regardless of their will. The Silver
Spring Monkeys case between 1981 and 1991 is one such example. 17 wild born
monkeys from the Phillipines were put through cruel experiments (involving the
severing of their sensory nerves so they could not feel any part of themselves, and
subsequently coercing them into moving their numbed limbs) with the aims of
investigating the effects of neuroplasticity. Although the findings eventually
developed a new method to allow certain groups of paralysed patients to regain
mobility, it came at the cost of these monkeys future. Bioethics is hence irrefutably
indispensable in the study of science because it grounds the discipline and prevents
its exploits from crossing the line.

Opponents of ethical sciences utilitarians- may argue that bioethics effectively
stymies scientific advancements. The guidelines imposed by ethics weigh down the
study and limit the possible advantages that science can bring to mankind. As the
saying goes, no pain, no gain. With every great accomplishment, there is a cost that
must be paid and to achieve greater heights, one must be willing to bear the price. In
the case of stem cell research, lives-to-be may be sacrificed, but the potential the stem
cells cultivated have to form new, readily available organs for transplantation can be
argued to benefit the society in the bigger scheme of things. The study of nuclear
energy may have given birth to some of mankinds biggest banes, but it has also
provided a more cost-efficient, greener as compared to the use of natural gases
and fossil fuels- solution to the energy crisis.

Isaac Asimov, prolific and influential science fiction writer, once said, The greatest
woe of life is that society gains knowledge faster than it does wisdom. As a
sophisticated, advanced society, we must learn that science belongs to all of us and
hence, try to use science for societal benefit rather than attempt to monopolise and
commercialise it. When penicillin was invented as the worlds first antibiotic and
proven to be a revolutionary, potentially lucrative business, Alexander Fleming did
not patent the discovery rather, he opened his findings to the rest of the world, with
the hopes of helping the people in desperate need rather than limiting the scope of his
discoverys impact to those lucky enough to afford it. If mankind is truly to move on,
we make sure that the knowledge we acquire is put to truly good use. But whilst
doing so, we must also remember not to forsake the marginalities for greater
achievement. Empathy and sentience is one of the defining factors of humanity, and
hence, the study of science needs to be grounded by ethics to prevent us from losing
sight of ourselves.