YT2095 Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 has been proposed: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6990482.stm I`ll see if I can find out what these 7 points are, but at face value it seems like a great idea. this is an interesting transcript also: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmsctech/uc747-i/uc74702.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternus Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 I haven't seen anything happening that forces a need for this sort of thing... While certainly scientists should consider the ethical implications of their work, I think some set of rules apparently made to make the general public happy is destined for disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted September 12, 2007 Author Share Posted September 12, 2007 a little Further info I can give, is that the 7 principals will come under the headings of: Rigor Respect Responsibility Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 Given that this implies it'd be a voluntary code anyway, I do not see that this would work any better/worst than the current ethics committees... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted September 12, 2007 Author Share Posted September 12, 2007 fair enough, but as far as I`m aware the Hypocratic Oath is voluntary also, which Doctor would You go to or trust, one that swore the Oath or one that didn`t? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gcol Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 Wow, enlightening... Did not know that scientists were ethical. No, er, rephrase that, a bit too personal perhaps... How about: "If science is the pursuit of truth then science cannot be ethical, for ethics places barriers in the path of truth. Ethics are a merely a construct of anthropological vanity and are as subjective as morality". Oh, I get it, Green scientists rule, O.K.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted September 12, 2007 Author Share Posted September 12, 2007 WOW (back at ya!) the guy hasn`t even presented the 7 principals yet, and there`s garbage being spouted off about it already! why don`t you Wait until the details are Given before posting such tripe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gcol Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 You said: but at face value it seems like a great idea. I said, in effect, that at face value it seems like a dumb and unscientific idea. So back at you with the garbage jibe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted September 12, 2007 Author Share Posted September 12, 2007 I said, in effect, that at face value it seems like a dumb and unscientific idea. So back at you with the garbage jibe. erm.... Nope, I can`t see where you implied that at all??? I can see where I said it. seems you were too distracted being Silly rather than making a Cogent point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 Scientists alread have one — Don't falsify your results Much beyond that it's politics, not science. Case in point: "It would be aimed at encouraging researchers to reflect on the impact their work would have on society, he said." The problem is that in basic research, you can't know where the results will take you, or what you will discover. And you run into the problem of not investigating things because of social pressures, and social pressures often have little to do with facts. (impact on society does not necessarily mean that you're looking to discover or develop something dangerous. Government fund that sort of research all the time) "The seven principles have already been adopted within government and Sir David hopes to extend that to other places of research around the world. " Sounds like it's a CYA on the part of government to distance themselves from research that voters might find objectionable, but it's hard to tell for sure, since the story is almost content-free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gcol Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 1. Had you wanted other than a face value discussion, perhaps you should have waited until the 7 points were published in full. You posted in politics, which is heavy on opinion and light on rigorous evidence. For any political statement you should be prepared for a vgorous counterblast. Dumb, garbage, and tripe are surely inappropriate words. I have read the transcript. Much future ammunition in there. Did you see the bits where he likened the seven points to the ten commandments and seemed to dismiss the relevance of the hypocratic oath? Swansont's post just beat mine. I agree with him. Do dumb, garbage and tripe apply to him also? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 Yeah, in the US, we would have scientists working on new biological weapons, but no cloning for ethical reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted September 12, 2007 Author Share Posted September 12, 2007 yes I agree, that Part of it is somewhat akin to the "hearts and minds" winning philosophy. but there WAS a time when Science and Being a Scientist was a Very Respected position in a community. now we`re something to Fear or distrust. largely I expect as result of making Corporate many facilities and the Media. I also see that Any effort spent reasserting that position well spent. Swansont's post just beat mine. I agree with him. Do dumb, garbage and tripe apply to him also? yes if he` come out with the same nonsensical drivel that you tend to do of late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 Yeah, I echo john's sentiment. I realize the 7 principals aren't known yet, so I'll just say that I'm concerned about how this will effect such things as cloning. A fair amount of suspicion is healthy in this case, I think. These are the kinds of things that can be used to disguise an agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 Here they are: - Act with skill and care, keep skills up to date - Prevent corrupt practice and declare conflicts of interest - Respect and acknowledge the work of other scientists - Ensure that research is justified and lawful - Minimise impacts on people, animals and the environment -Discuss issues science raises for society -Do not mislead; present evidence honestly Most successful Profs are disqualified for the first point, though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 - Minimise impacts on people, animals and the environment this basically rules out medical research as new drugs can vastly improve chances of surviving a disease. quite an impact wouldn't you say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted September 12, 2007 Author Share Posted September 12, 2007 Nice Find, where did you get it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gcol Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 - Ensure that research is justified and lawful A lot of weapons research scientists out of work, especially when obeyed together with: Minimise impacts on people, animals and the environment Scientists will obey, of course, as Christians obey the ten commandments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 this basically rules out medical research as new drugs can vastly improve chances of surviving a disease. quite an impact wouldn't you say. Minimize doesn't mean eliminate, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gcol Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 Found here, YT's original updated http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=seven+scientific+ethics&meta= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted September 12, 2007 Author Share Posted September 12, 2007 and here too: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6990868.stm thnx Gcol Now we can discuss the implications freely... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 I think Tom Lehrer said it best: Plagiarize' date='Let no one else's work evade your eyes, Remember why the good Lord made your eyes, So don't shade your eyes, But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize... Only be sure always to call it please, "research". [/quote'] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dak Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 isn't 'science' pan-national? i.e., it's not britain's to regulate and dictate a code to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gcol Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 There seems to be a measure of international support, and if it is so reasonable and enlightened, surely even the U.S. would sign up and ratify, as they did with Kyoto? (not). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted September 12, 2007 Author Share Posted September 12, 2007 isn't 'science' pan-national? i.e., it's not britain's to regulate and dictate a code to? non sequitur. the Nobel Prize is for residents of Stockholm? the Geneva Convention only valid in Geneva? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now