Derry claims that questions about the relationship between science and ethics have got too much importance because he thinks science effects people in many angles, directly and indirectly. Derry also indicates the two contradictory thoughts about science. Whether it’s evil or good. Derry discusses the common values of science, the impacts which science and ethics make mutually and where to they meet. Derry begins with talking about the values which scientists have on page 146.
In this world, science has evolved to replace what we see today as human necessities, religion and family. Things such as these have been sacrificed for the sake of stability and happiness. While the aim of stability and happiness might be an ideal goal set by the controller’s of BNW, sacrifices have been made in exchange that leads to question if they are still human. Human qualities such as sadness, love and anger, have all been subdued for the sake of stability. Inventions such as soma and V.P.S (Violent Passion Surrogate) are merely illusions to trick people’s bodies that they are still human.
As technology advances, more things become possible. One of these things is genetically modifying a baby, this is very wrong. Genetic modifying or genetic engineering is altering someone or something’s DNA. Scientists hope to cure diseases with this method, but doing this can lead to some harmful effects. This process is very unethical.
Take this into consideration and acknowledge how it could impact humanity, as well as the cloned human. The advancing technology allows individuals to have the freedom of bringing their prescience about cloning humans into a reality, faster than one could imagine. One mistake could entirely deteriorate humankind more than benefit it. In today’s quickly-advancing technological age, human cloning is possible; however, it is unethical because it diminishes individuality, interferes with nature, and increases the risk of fatal failures. In this world we live for the sake of individuality and what makes a person different from the other seven billion people.
Firstly, it is the question of people’s professional interest. Actually, many thinkers and scientists are scratching their heads in order to find an exact answer on this dilemma. Perhaps one can imagine gratification they get, when someone finds the solution and it is finally over - it is like solving the Rubik’s Cube. Secondly, chicken or egg dilemma could help in understanding a right direction of development and expanding the general knowledge. If people discover that scientific theory is the right one and egg is the winner, then biological dissidents, not believing in evolutionary theory, might change their minds to confirm their mistakenness.
The role of sci-fi has long been to hold a high contrast image to society in order to expose the legion of flaws. Ours is to keep an ever watchful eye on scientific and social progress in conjunction with the works that depict it, as there may be both grand adventures and dire warnings hidden between the lines. A few ideas that could potentially help bring about the better: protection from outside forces should definitely be the most crucial priority, but there should be safeguards created to combat internal threats as well, both malicious singular entities and abuses on a more systemic scale. Of course this would slow down the people who truly want to pursue science in its purest form, but I fear that roadblocks to accessing the information are a necessary evil. The fact that humanity cannot achieve the perfect system is simply the result of human nature as it stands
In my opinion, reproducibility and replicability of experiments are important parts of the scientific method. To start with the replicability, why is this an important feature in science? When data is replicable it becomes more reliable. Repeating scientific experiments allows you to identify falsification, flukes and mistakes. Mistakes can be incorrect entering of data or misreading of results.
We need disagreement in order to see both the pros and cons of our knowledge and claims. Natural Science has evolved as a disciplined, logical search for knowledge obtained by examination of the best available evidence subject to correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence and thus always moving towards accuracy. When completing an experiment and publishing it, if an idea or theory is expressed that will challenge the already accepted beliefs in the community, peer reviews and others recreating the experiment follow immediately to test how true the statement is. If there is
“Do Environmentalists overstate their case” Nano technology for the world would be good, but there are side effects that need to be evaluated. Even though new technology like nano technology may help the world, scientist do not know how it will cause harm completely yet. Scientist want to use the technology, but environmentalist are still afraid of side effects that may happen. The main problems with the nano technology are the following: environmental waste, health, and safety. Environmentalists want to use the new nano-technology, but are skeptic due to environmental and people issues.
Scientists can recognize the problematic character of a new research problem only if they have a background of previously accepted exemplary problems. Through similarity relationships scientists use the problematic character of a previously accepted exemplar to construct new research problems. Furthermore, exemplars may also help scientists to assess the relative importance of new research problems so that they direct their efforts to those problems that are worth working on. The third function of exemplary problem solutions is assessment of proposed solutions to new puzzles. Previously solved exemplary problems provide scientists with standards that enable them to judge the acceptability of proposed puzzle-solutions, whether theoretical, instrumental, or experimental.