Science and technology
Science and technology are of great importance to the wellbeing of the world. Advancements in the medical, economic, and agricultural sectors much depend on scientific inventions. However, in as much as everyone acknowledges the good that scientific knowledge has brought forth, some people have been questioning how far scientific research is allowed to go. Could it be possible that the limitless of science can turn into a nuisance to ethical uprightness? Perhaps it is high time for scientific knowledge and technology to have limitations due to ethical issues.
In the contemporary world, just about everything around us is a result of science and technology. Starting from household equipment such as the microwave, cookers, moving on to means of transportation, communication, and so on. It is undeniable that all these inventions of scientists help us save money and time. Some people argue that putting a limitation on the science brains will hinder some innovations which would have come in to make life much more comfortable. Technology has advanced to the extent of scientists making artificially synthesized food. For instance, meat can be made from a laboratory, and consumers cannot even distinguish it from that of a live animal (Bramble). Such technology is meant to eliminate meat shortages across nations and save butchers the hassle of having to slaughter livestock.
Organ transplant is a common operation done in many of the major hospitals in the world. But before doctors were capable of doing such a procedure, several studies and research had to be conducted on animals and human beings bodies. Scientists had to take a dead person’s body cut it open and run tests on the organs. Of course, this was only done on bodies whose owners had signed an agreement to that before they died. The transplant of organs has saved a lot of lives, but it would certainly have not come into existence had scientific knowledge have limitations. Usually, a dead body is expected to be buried or cremated; the idea of handing over the body for scientific research sounds unethical to most people.
Another field of science that has intensified the debate of whether science should have bounds is cloning. It is a process that copies the cell data of a living host and creates a new life. After the DNA is copied from a host, it is implanted as an embryo and then goes through the typical development cycle. Those in favor of cloning claim that it does not necessarily involve making a whole new person (Regoli). Take, for instance, an individual who has kidney failure. The cells of the kidney can be extracted and cloned to create a new compatible organ for transplant. With such an invention, the menace of organ scarcity will be a long-forgotten history. Also, cloning will be used to replace missing or damaged cells, which will treat many genetic disorders and illnesses. Therefore the science of cloning will bring a stop to amputation, which has left quite many people that were physically able handicapped.
Cloning is playing god. Imagine a human being with the ability to create another human being? Such scientists will view themselves as invincible and unobligated to any higher power. Religion, or the fundamental beliefs of a higher being, helps people to be ethical as they fear to disappoint their god. But with the scientific advancement capable of creating a human being, indeed, religions will fall. And because of these ethical issues, there should be some boundaries in the realm of science. Another argument to discourage cloning (scientific knowledge limitlessness) is the uncertainties it will bring forth to society. Presumably, parents will be manufacturing children to a particular genetic profile. Other than making humanity susceptible to deformity and disease, issues that racism will not end. In contemporary society, people from different races can inter-marry and end up having inter-racial kids. Such inter-marriages have contributed significantly to the effort of promoting equality across all races. But with the practice of cloning, one race might be more dominant, which would encourage racism.
Another reason as to why scientific knowledge, explicitly cloning, should have a boundary is because it would make the poor disappear as the rich get richer (Regoli). In a society where genetic selection is allowed, those who can afford to clone will create their class, and those who cannot afford would be disregarded. Therefore the main critique behind cloning is the imbalance it will bring in society. A lot of unethical deeds such as crime come forth whenever there is an imbalance in the community.
In conclusion, despite all the good that comes from science and technology, it is mandatory to have a limitation; moreover, this is not to say that inventions will be terminated. Lack of boundaries on scientific research may lead to the violation of some basic morals. There are some inventions that are prone to do much harm to humanity in future. As far as the well being of the human being is concerned, ethical issues should be respected in the realm of science.
Bramble, Ben. “Lab-grown Meat Could Let Humanity Ignore a Serious Moral Failing.” The Conversation, 14 Dec. 2017, theconversation.com/lab-grown-meat-could-let-humanity-ignore-a-serious-moral-failing-88909. Accessed 15 Oct. 2019.
Regoli, Natalie. “13 Essential Advantages and Disadvantages of Cloning.” Green Garage, 4 July 2015, greengarageblog.org/13-essential-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-cloning. Accessed 15 Oct. 2019.