Also, the uneducated public believes most results that are published; if a scientist hastily publishes results without full justifications people could actually believe or misinterpret the wrong idea/results. Furthermore, if a scientist assume that he/she has the accurate results and shares it with others without justifying their ideas and results; he/she could be attacked by others (for example, Watson and Crick case with Rosalind in the movie). Therefore I believe that scientists have the right to keep their results confidential until they fully explain and justify their reasoning, but no way under any circumstance should fully completed justified research be kept confidential because the
Author John M. Barry, in The Great Influenza, claims that scientists must embrace uncertainty and doubt their ideas in order to be successful in their research. To support his claim, he first states that “uncertainty creates weakness”, then lists the traits required by scientists (including curiosity and creativity), and finally explains that experiments must be made to work by the investigator. The purpose of this is to further support his claim in order to encourage readers to embrace uncertainty because certainty creates something to lean on, while uncertainty forces one to manipulate experiments to produce answers. Barry adopts a formal tone to appeal to a worldwide audience, specifically those interested in scientific research, by using
Some think of science as advantageous, while others believe it can be immoral. Acts of science can lead to manipulation of the natural world and cause those performing the experiments to “play God.” Nathaniel Hawthorne 's short stories “Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment,” “Rappaccini’s Daughter,” and “The Birthmark” each incorporate characters that attempt to alter a natural aspect of life and in turn are met with failure. It is through his short stories that Nathaniel Hawthorne reveals opinion of science: Men should not engage in scientific studies that require them to act as God.
“Our advances in science over the past two centuries have truly been extraordinary, but our society still suffers from the forces that reject reason and prevent our ability to take full advantage of discoveries
Scientists must use a plethora of experimentation and repetition to seek out answers. Scientific findings need to be certain before being shared. Barry uses formal diction in his account, showing strength and certainty with what he writes. In the introduction of this passage, word choices like “strength,” “certainty,” “passion,” and “venture into the unknown,”
In Mary Shelley’s 19th century novel, Frankenstein, Victor Frankenstein is noble in his effort to help mankind. His scientific Prometheanism is initially meant as a good thing, but has serious negative consequences. Victor wants to bring life back to dead matter so humans, in theory, would not have to die. Similarly, in today’s world, scientists and doctors continually and nobly pursue advancement in the medical world to generate new treatments for sick patients. For example, the medical community today is pursuing embryonic stem cell research to discover cures for diseases like cancer, Alzheimer’s, and diabetes.
Harris makes a compelling argument that Collins's views may limit the advancement of science and affect his motivation
Barry breaks down that a scientist must be able to go into the unknown. Barry uses long pauses between the words “uncertainty” and “embrace” because he wants the reader to break down what a scientist has to do. Embrace the uncertainty because certainty is the key to courage. Also by saying this, Barry reflects on the first paragraph when he said uncertainty makes one tentative if not fearful and tentative steps even when in the right direction, may not overcome significant disaster.’ By reflecting on this statement, Barry goes on to elaborate the fact that being a scientist is hard work because even if you’re right, it could be
However, his ultimate failure serves as a warning against the dangers of overreliance on reason and progress. It highlights the need for a more holistic approach to scientific inquiry, one that takes into account the moral and ethical implications of scientific
“A Question of Ethics” by Jane Goodall and “Animal Research Saves Lives” by Heloisa Sabin presents two sides of the same coin in regards to Animal testing. Thereby, questioning the validity or necessity of animal research and testing today. In “A Question of Ethics” by Goodall she presents a scenery of the living conditions of the animals which are often isolated; posing the ultimate questions of, whether animal research is essential to medical research? Or How many tests are performed only to conform to laws and not out of scientific merit? The Suggestion was made that scientists should explore alternative options, such as testing on cell and tissue cultures.
This article not only revealed an aspect of human nature, but it also described a possible methodology of a scientific
Introduction Animals testing have significantly contributed to the advancement of scientific knowledge in general and to biomedical progress specifically. Many example showing that laboratory animals in medical development and other aspects have significantly influenced human health and reduced suffering, for example improved diagnosis of infectious disease (Hau, Jann, Schapiro & Steven, 2002). But since 1960s and 1970s, animals testing protests has gained prominence and strength, people start to argue is it moral to continue “cruel” animal testing. Animal Testing is a Moral Act In the rest of this article, I shall apply different concept under utilitarianism try to discuss whether animal testing are moral acts. It is important to notice that (1) in this article, applying the general idea of utilitarianism which is “the greatest happiness of greatest number” and (2) the animals testing under the rules and regulations.
Although the experimentation of animals has furthered medical knowledge, it should not be allowed because it is brutal and animals are unable to give their approval. In order to do a study on humans it must be authorized by them, where animals are unable to give consent, which strikes questions in the world of science on whether this is morally acceptable. Although animal experimentation can result in saving the lives of millions, many find it to be cruel and unjust. Seeing as animals are unable to speak for themselves, they are still able to express their emotions through their behavior.
Specific Purpose: By the end of my speech, the audience will know about the problem of conducting experiments on animals and the ethical issue of the cruel treatment of animals by the researchers. While the problem of conducting experiments on animals draws attention of the society, the speech would present the limitation of animal experiments and outline the alternatives. Central Idea: 1. Conducting experiments on animals has become one of crucial ethical issues of the modern society and it has even been banned in some countries.
