At the end of the day, if there are truly ethical considerations, those have to override scientific considerations.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
My personal conviction is that science is concerned wholly with truth, not with ethics.
Researchers should always consider ethical concerns on scientific research and disclose their data to the public. Scientists also need to discuss issues surrounding their research with those who are concerned.
The moral issue here is whether the United States Congress is going to stand in the way of science and preclude scientists from doing lifesaving research.
Ethics is not routinely taught to science students except in medicine, and I think it should be.
I consistently encounter people in academic settings and scientists and journalists who feel that you can't say that anyone is wrong in any deep sense about morality, or with regard to what they value in life. I think this doubt about the application of science and reason to questions of value is really quite dangerous.
And I think that what is of concern is that they seem to be bringing skills from the scientific world into the interrogation room in a way that begs a lot of questions about whether it's ethical.
There are a few dogmas and double standards and really regrettable exports from philosophy that have confounded the thinking of scientists on the subject of morality.
Blanket objection is not very reasonable to me - any effort to control scientific advances is doomed to fail.
Science cannot resolve moral conflicts, but it can help to more accurately frame the debates about those conflicts.
There's no question that as science, knowledge and technology advance, that we will attempt to do more significant things. And there's no question that we will always have to temper those things with ethics.