Younger scientists are extremely sensitive to the moral implications of all they do.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
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.
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.
I think it's important for scientists to be a bit less arrogant, a bit more humble, recognising we are capable of making mistakes and being fallacious - which is increasingly serious in a society where our work may have unpredictable consequences.
Science cannot resolve moral conflicts, but it can help to more accurately frame the debates about those conflicts.
Science by itself has no moral dimension. But it does seek to establish truth. And upon this truth morality can be built.
I happen to love science... Scientists are all slightly mad. There is truth in the stereotype of the mad scientist. They are mad with curiosity.
My personal conviction is that science is concerned wholly with truth, not with ethics.
Though neglectful of their responsibility to protect science, scientists are increasingly aware of their responsibility to society.
Scientists appear most often in horror movies. Through childlike curiosity or God-defying hubris, they unleash destructive forces they can't control - 'Forbidden Planet's Monsters of the Id.
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.
No opposing quotes found.