2008-10-30, 07:55 PM
One of the major reasons why I have chosen to focus on plant genetics is because I personally feel like I'm treading on morally ambiguous ground by pushing the boundaries on issues such as stem-cell research and other areas that use an unborn embryonic fetus as a base material to conduct experiments.
In general though, most people follow the disgust principle in that they feel what disgusts them is morally reprehensible. Therefore people come from different boundaries and background and have different ideas of what they feel is morally justified in the pursuit of science.
I personally feel that professional researchers aren't given as much credit as they are due. They work numerous hours working on designing experiments that should work and have specific goals. Animals are not expensive, but they will run an expense if poorly run experiments with no overhead are performed on a repeated basis.
There is a fine line with everything. And I think that for researchers who do choose to cross the line (causing immense harm to an individual animal or human) then they should be held responsible to bring out great results. And if they don't, then their experiments were poorly tested and their income/research grants should be restricted because of their negligence.
Many important theories have come with experimentation. Even antibodies and vaccines that we have today stem from animal experiments and theories that have led to their creation such as Griffith's Experiment.
In general it's awkward for me to discuss what's right and wrong since I'm so extraordinarily biased by my time period and my life experience.
For example, people today don't find vaccines or injections wrong in the slightest. But if we were to make "super children" and gave them "good genes" from birth: "yellow hair, blue eyes, increase amino acid production" then I would find that wrong. And yet, we constantly "update" our immune system in order to increase our defenses.
I wish I could offer absolute statements such as "this is wrong" and "that is right." But it just seems so presumptious and counterinuitive when I realize that there social norms are constantly changing and my views are heavily influenced by this fluctuating bias that has no solid ground.
In general though, most people follow the disgust principle in that they feel what disgusts them is morally reprehensible. Therefore people come from different boundaries and background and have different ideas of what they feel is morally justified in the pursuit of science.
I personally feel that professional researchers aren't given as much credit as they are due. They work numerous hours working on designing experiments that should work and have specific goals. Animals are not expensive, but they will run an expense if poorly run experiments with no overhead are performed on a repeated basis.
There is a fine line with everything. And I think that for researchers who do choose to cross the line (causing immense harm to an individual animal or human) then they should be held responsible to bring out great results. And if they don't, then their experiments were poorly tested and their income/research grants should be restricted because of their negligence.
Many important theories have come with experimentation. Even antibodies and vaccines that we have today stem from animal experiments and theories that have led to their creation such as Griffith's Experiment.
Spoiler
![[Image: Mouse.jpg]](http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q45/Passwordv2/Mouse.jpg)
In general it's awkward for me to discuss what's right and wrong since I'm so extraordinarily biased by my time period and my life experience.
For example, people today don't find vaccines or injections wrong in the slightest. But if we were to make "super children" and gave them "good genes" from birth: "yellow hair, blue eyes, increase amino acid production" then I would find that wrong. And yet, we constantly "update" our immune system in order to increase our defenses.
I wish I could offer absolute statements such as "this is wrong" and "that is right." But it just seems so presumptious and counterinuitive when I realize that there social norms are constantly changing and my views are heavily influenced by this fluctuating bias that has no solid ground.