I don't have a copy of my biology text from Uni handy (leant it to a friend for the frog-life cycle diagram).
however, the introduction appears to make a disclaimer that I've seen in a number of science texts (physics and chemistry). It describes the discipline in question as seeking out the physically quantifiable, and does not concern itself with the ephemoral (I can't recall how its phrased).
this seems to exclude moral considerations from the discipline, not from any particular scientist.
I recall a 2nd year cellular biology lab, in which the professor took great delight in our squeamishness when he described the process by which they obtain blood for our lab from chickens.
This also brings me to a tangetial topic that I think has some bearing on this thread, particularly if we're tossing ideas about: what exactly is the relationship between sciences & technology?
there's research for private industry & governments. There is the development of new tools for the sciences (say, the electron microscope or a particle collider or ultrasound).
In terms of developing our measuring tools, we distance ourselves from our own direct perception of the universe. We are placing the lens of a microscope between the lens of our eyes and the object we're observing.
this distances the human observer from the observed thing. The tools push us further from direct observation. The further we isolate ourselves, the harder it is to feel sympathy. think of holding someone's hand with a glove on or without one.
(there's also a can of worms here for another thread, possibly in the laboratory - if scientists want to see something normally invisible, and build a machine to help them detect it using theory, until they complete a machine that shows them what they expect to see, then how do we know that the machine's displayed result are objective beyond the maker's bias?)
I actually read an account of a new method for slaughtering chickens faster. The spokesperson referred to it as a success because it "shaved valuable tenths of a second off of the manufacturing times." I wept.
there's also experimentation on animals and humans. dissection. "modern" medical practice (invasive and cutting). If our medical practice developed on the battlefield, where is the morality supposed to come from? I believe that war teaches mercy as it deals death.
when big business (most decidedly immoral) takes the sciences under its wing, the hopes for a moral voice dies out under the mounds of spun lies of the marketing machine.
Monsanto anyone? they have taken the biological sciences to a whole new level of immorality. Why else would they expand the amount of products with aspertame in them, despite growing public concern over the reported deleterious effects on one's immune system (google it if you like, there's lots).
Where is the voice to say, "dudes, factory farms are concentration camps for chickens. Why do you hate poultry so much?"
Also - the sciences are quite predominantly a male discipline. Our agricultural industry exploits the females of given species in extremis. Chickens to lay eggs, cattle to create milk, bees honey, etc.
As individual humans involved in the sciences, where is our personal responsibility? what about for those of us outside of the sciences?
If the sciences are indifferent to morality, what's to be done?
-not jack |
