what do you believe? do you agree or disagree?

[eremon]

'scientists should be free to research and develop new tecnological advances without any constraint or restriction'

do you agree or disagree? why?
i would like to have your opinion about it

[Jazzratt]

I agree. I don't see why anyone should stand in the way of scientific development.

[Lord Testicles]

I'd disagree, I'd have no problem with them doing what they want as long as they don't harm any humans without consent.

[eremon]

taking into account that their sacred expedition is to serve mankind against poverty and illnesses, i think that scientist must be restricted when they use tecnological advances in a self-interest way or for a company's private interests that goes against environment and humanity.

[Vargha Poralli]

Unfortunately Scientists are human too . they too are susceptible to all general pitfalls and weaknesses of humans too.

but those who are going to benefit from science are humans too. there's no way to stop them from doing good to humanity or bad to it using those scientists work !!!!

so in no way stopping scientific researches is going to help and at the same time scientist should be constrained on what they research and what way the do their research.

[Janus]

'scientists should be free to research and develop new tecnological advances without any constraint or restriction'
It depends on the type of research and whether it will benefit anyone or not but in general, yes.

[Physco Bitch]

I would agree with this if it wasn't for the fact that they are getting money to research such stupid things now.
What was , ah yes, they research and have found out how to boil an egg properly.
The list goes on for the stupid things they have been researching lately , but if they had the freedom to do research in what they want to then some very good research could be done. But they will also do research into things they would be better not to, there will always be people against one research project or another going on and on some of them i would have to agree - this could end up with things getting out of hand.
Trying to weigh up the pro's and con's and it is still hard to say - so i will have to just puzzle over this for awhile :) .

[RedLenin]

'scientists should be free to research and develop new tecnological advances without any constraint or restriction'

I disagree. Science a tool that should be utilized by the people for the general advancement of humanity. If scientists research and develope, and are not bound by any obligations to the community at large, this could cause problems. Scientists should seek approval by the people. For example, if scientists wanted to conduct research utilizing vivisection for the purpose of producing an advancement that was not absolutely necessary, they should not simply be free to do it. Such an issue would be a moral one involving the free agency of a living creature and potential violation of such and should be decided by the people. So basically, I think scientists need to be accountable.

[ahab]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2006 09:51 am
'scientists should be free to research and develop new tecnological advances without any constraint or restriction'

do you agree or disagree? why?
i would like to have your opinion about it
I disagree, mainly just because if you examine nuclear physics thats pretty much how it goes and thats bullshit. Just because the average person cant understand what is being done nuclear scientists are usually just left alone to do whatever. Develope new ways to destroy people and the earth. There needs to be checks on scientists and their studies, for the sake of humanity

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I agree, but the quote is somewhat out of context. It doesn't mean to suggest a scientist can go find 10 orphans and kill them for an experiment.

[apathy maybe]

'scientists should be free to research and develop new tecnological advances without any constraint or restriction'No. Scientists should be guided by the community the exist in just as any other worker. Besides which, as has been pointed out, they should not work on sentient beings (such as humans).

Feyerabend wrote a lot of crap, but what he said about reining in scientists is quite relevant I feel.

[Sean]

'scientists should be free to research and develop new tecnological advances without any constraint or restriction'

The true constraints on research and development in my opinion have never been those of moral objections, but rather industry, patent enforcement and secrecy. The ability of a Corporation in the Drugs industry to effectively fence off whole areas of drug synthesis purely to gain a market advantage is something that greatly impedes mankind's fight against disease.
Also, the directions that hi-tech industries take are dictated by things like military spending and so most benefits to mankind are either some run-off from research into 'defence' (for example the internet or the microwave oven) , or a cast iron method of finding a cure for something that only Corporation X can make (and of course charge the earth for!).

While there are obvious moral objections to research in humans and animals, I think that the only true impediment there is the difficulty in creating patents and laws stopping others from building on work in this area, and is therefore less profitable in the long run. Anti-stem cell research groups, animal rights protesters etc will only be tolerated as long as it takes for the lawyers to get around some of the red tape involved in claiming intellectual ownership of all life on this planet (and there is considerable progress in that area)!