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.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Ethically, I think pretty much every code of ethics for doctors suggests that they should not be in an interrogation room, particularly if there's anything coercive or abusive going on.
At the end of the day, if there are truly ethical considerations, those have to override scientific considerations.
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.
Ethics is not routinely taught to science students except in medicine, and I think it should be.
It is inexcusable for scientists to torture animals; let them make their experiments on journalists and politicians.
In the continuing debate over the morality of enhanced interrogation, an essential consideration is often overlooked: intent.
Sometimes we have to take measures to protect the innocent that we do not like. Severe interrogations are sometimes part of doing that.
My personal conviction is that science is concerned wholly with truth, not with ethics.
I do support enhanced interrogation techniques. Obviously their value is shining through with respect to the bin Laden killing.
Enhanced interrogation is not to be considered lightly, but the use of enhanced interrogation techniques does not require moral people to abandon their beliefs. Rather, it is precisely during these difficult times that one's beliefs about life, justice and mercy become indispensible.
No opposing quotes found.