Today, I read an article about the views of immoral science in recent years. The article, Immoral Science, is written by Dan Jones and discusses how with increasing technology comes with a greater list of what people consider to be immoral research. Some areas on this list include: “nanotechnology, synthetic biology, genomics and genetically modified organisms or so-called ‘Frankenfoods’… cloning, designer babies, stem-cell research, human-animal hybrids” (Jones). This article supports my interest in the theme of my paper because it gives more information about the differences between science and theology. For example, scientists have to disregard moral issues if they really want to find an answer to their experiments. It doesn’t make sense for a scientist to be studying cloning if they believe it’s considered “playing God”. It also discusses how people tend to “accept” some scientific studies more than others. Like I asked in a previous post, is there a definite line between what’s moral and immoral, given the fact that everyone has different values?
Another thing mentioned in the article is the idea of organ trafficking. When the proposal of selling organs for a good $150,000 per operation is introduced, people become disgusted with others for putting a price on human life. It seems that an issue becomes more likely to upset the public when money is involved. Is that perhaps proof that the Dollhouse is on the public’s hate list? Another connection easily made to the Dollhouse within this article is the snippet saying, “…measures would be put in place to help the poor, so they would not be driven to sell their organs out of desperation” (Jones). This connects in the way that the poor in this show give their bodies up for a long-term period, due to extreme desperation.
P.S: I think I'm changing my theme from researching the line between science and theology to controversies within today's scientific studies. This way I can still hit up the morality side of it, but obtain more information, since the topic is a bit more broad. Does that sound any better?
P.S: I think I'm changing my theme from researching the line between science and theology to controversies within today's scientific studies. This way I can still hit up the morality side of it, but obtain more information, since the topic is a bit more broad. Does that sound any better?
I think that there is no definate line between what is moral and what is immoral because different people say and think different things. I think that society presents the "perfect" idea of what is moral and what is immoral and then tells us to follow that but I believe that each person has a different idea as to what is moral and immoral.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, I also had to adjust my topic and make it broader to obtain more information. I am still going to concentrate on my main idea but I believe more information will help explain things better. I think making a broader topic will be useful to you with such a controversial topic!
I think the idea of focusing on immoral research in science is a good idea. Many people consider stem-cell research to be an inhumane thing to do, even if it could help many people. There is a fine line between morals and doing something that could benefit thousands of people.
ReplyDelete