Should Scientists Be Held Morally Responsible For Discoveries

1. Should scientists be held morally responsible for the applications of their discoveries?
To what extent would it be true to say that technological advances drive changes in values and morality?
A. Personally I believe that scientists should be held morally responsible for the applications of their discoveries. My belief is based on a simple logic that if we are giving credit to scientists for their important and beneficial discoveries then on the other side of the coin, they should even be held responsible for the destruction that their discoveries cause to the world. For the major beneficial discoveries this scientists are showered with Nobel prizes and rewards. For example Jonas Salk for discovery of polio vaccine, Isaac Newton for the

Agent Orange or Herbicide Orange is one of the herbicides and defoliants used by the U.S. military as part of its herbicidal warfare program, Operation Ranch Hand during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971. It was a mixture of equal parts of two herbicides, 2, 4, 5-T and 2, 4-D. Agent Orange was manufactured for the U.S. Department of Defense primarily by Monsanto Corporation and Dow Chemical. The government of Vietnam says that 4 million of its citizens were exposed to Agent Orange, and as many as 3 million have suffered illnesses because of it; these figures include the children of people who were exposed. Agent Orange was used have been affected and have multiple health problems, including cleft palate, mental disabilities, hernias, and extra fingers and toes. In the 1970s, high levels of dioxin were found in the breast milk of South Vietnamese women, and in the blood of U.S. military personnel who had served in Vietnam. Dioxins from Agent Orange have persisted in the Vietnamese environment since the war, settling in the soil and sediment and entering the food chain through animals and fish which feed in the contaminated areas. The movement of dioxins through the food web has resulted in bioconcentration and biomagnifications. Agent Orange had a very severe effect. So shouldn’t the scientists of Corporation and Dow Chemical who discovered this

For example, if a man driving a car was driving along a dark lane, and suddenly a person just shows up out of nowhere, and the driver hits him to death, is he guilty? The driver had neither intentions nor any idea that the person was there, but yet he would be charged with murder in a court of law or another example if a person is smoking and dumps his lit cigarette on the dry field and it leads to a wild fire, isn’t it that person’s fault? Hence this examples shows that if the consequences of the discovery are negative then like in accident unknowingly or an unintentional mistake, scientist has to be held responsible. The scientists that make discoveries should not be given full responsibility because they have the benefit of the doubt, and that they have no idea what other people may want to use their discovery. However, they should still, to some degree, be held responsible for simply making the discovery, because if they hadn’t discovered it, there would be no possibility for anyone to exploit the