- Joined
- Jun 10, 2010
- Messages
- 91
- Reaction score
- 13
Consider this statement:
Scientific inquiry is rooted in the desire to discover, but there is no discovery so important that in its pursuit a threat to human life can be tolerated.
Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statements means. Describe a specific situation in which a threat to human life might be tolerated in the pursuit of scientific discovery. Discuss what you think determines when the pursuit of scientific discovery is more important than the protection of human life.
The main goal of scientific inquiry is the pursuit of knowledge and truth for the benefit of mankind. However, there is a limit at which the value of a discovery is outweighed by the cost. This limit is the worth of a human life and is echoed by the given statement.
In most cases, scientific inquiry can easily be carried out by experiments that exclude danger to humans, such as performing animal experiments or by being carried out in a safe manner such that any risk is minimal. However, there are certain fields in which risks are necessary and all other methods of investigation have been exhausted. For example, upon manufacturing a novel cancer drug, a pharmaceutical company will test the drugs toxicity on animal models or other methods. Eventually, the drug must be tested on humans in clinical trials in order to determine its true effectiveness and if there are any side effects. In this case, there is absolutely no other option except to test the drug on humans and this will inevitably put lives at risk as some patients will suffer severe side effects or death. If the drug works as intended, many lives could be saved. If the clinical trials were not carried out, the drug would not be approved and society would not benefit from its use. In this case, most people would accept the risk as a necessary cost given the potential benefit of the drug.
A balance must be established between scientific knowledge and its threat to human life. If the discovery has the potential to save many lives, this will offset the risk of danger encountered during the process. However, if the scientific inquiry is likely to lead to very little benefit or use to the general population, then the cost of a possible threat to human life is intolerable. Another factor to consider is the design of the experiments underlying the scientific investigation. If a method can be devised that does not pose a threat to human life and provides equally conclusive results, then adopting the riskier approach would be obviously unacceptable.
thanks
Scientific inquiry is rooted in the desire to discover, but there is no discovery so important that in its pursuit a threat to human life can be tolerated.
Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statements means. Describe a specific situation in which a threat to human life might be tolerated in the pursuit of scientific discovery. Discuss what you think determines when the pursuit of scientific discovery is more important than the protection of human life.
The main goal of scientific inquiry is the pursuit of knowledge and truth for the benefit of mankind. However, there is a limit at which the value of a discovery is outweighed by the cost. This limit is the worth of a human life and is echoed by the given statement.
In most cases, scientific inquiry can easily be carried out by experiments that exclude danger to humans, such as performing animal experiments or by being carried out in a safe manner such that any risk is minimal. However, there are certain fields in which risks are necessary and all other methods of investigation have been exhausted. For example, upon manufacturing a novel cancer drug, a pharmaceutical company will test the drugs toxicity on animal models or other methods. Eventually, the drug must be tested on humans in clinical trials in order to determine its true effectiveness and if there are any side effects. In this case, there is absolutely no other option except to test the drug on humans and this will inevitably put lives at risk as some patients will suffer severe side effects or death. If the drug works as intended, many lives could be saved. If the clinical trials were not carried out, the drug would not be approved and society would not benefit from its use. In this case, most people would accept the risk as a necessary cost given the potential benefit of the drug.
A balance must be established between scientific knowledge and its threat to human life. If the discovery has the potential to save many lives, this will offset the risk of danger encountered during the process. However, if the scientific inquiry is likely to lead to very little benefit or use to the general population, then the cost of a possible threat to human life is intolerable. Another factor to consider is the design of the experiments underlying the scientific investigation. If a method can be devised that does not pose a threat to human life and provides equally conclusive results, then adopting the riskier approach would be obviously unacceptable.
thanks