breuel@h-sc1.UUCP (thomas breuel) (02/12/86)
||Isn't it funny? When molecular biologists started working with recombinant ||DNA, there were actually bozos who thought it was dangerous!!!!! :-( || ||We must be careful with technologies that are not well understood. ||Molecular biologists worked with extreme care and precautions until ||it was found that recombinant DNA from non-pathogenic organisms is ||harmless. I wish that physicists had exercised the same caution ||when exploding the first fission and fusion bombs. I am not certain ||about the historical development, but it seems to me that *at the ||time* of the first atomic bomb, there was no way to exclude the ||possibility of starting a chain reaction in the atmosphere or ground ||with a reasonable degree of certainty. It does not matter whether ||it turned out to be 'harmless' after all, if there is the possibility ||that an experiment endangers the survival of our whole species, it ||is irresponsible and criminal to conduct it. | |ANY new experiment POSSIBLY may endanger the survival of our species. |Unless you are willing to define: | 1) What is a reasonable degree of certainty? | 2) Who decides what the probability for disaster | of a given experiment are? By what criteria? | 3) Should or should not the possible benefits of such an | experiment be weighed in the balance? Who judges the benefits? |such talk is meaningless. [Sorry for quoting the whole thing again] No, you cannot hide behind administrative mumbo-jumbo to avoid the question. This is not a question of 'who decides' or 'how can we weigh'. If YOU are a scientist and other people are uttering doubts about the safety of YOUR experiments, you MUST take them seriously. This is YOUR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY as a scientist. As the self-control of molecular biologists has shown, scientists are willing to slow down their research and avoid experiments that are potentially dangerous. What worries me is that such self-control is in effect discouraged by existing funding and employment policies. If you study the Manhattan project, for example, you will find that the logistics and psychology of the project precluded this self-control of scientists. It was only after the war that many members of the scientific staff began to reflect on the implications of their project. Thomas. PS: needless to state explicitely that I believe that there is no possible benefit, political, ethical, moral, economical, that justifies an experiment that poses a threat to the survival of our species. Once there are no humans anymore, there is no-one to benefit anymore either... (but, then, there is no-one left to accuse the experimentor of mass-murder either).
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (02/16/86)
Re: potentially dangerous experiments The question remains, who decides whether an experiment should be performed? My answer would be, the one who will conduct the experiment. (If several people are involved, then the principal investigator.) None of the alternatives, including this one, are fully satisfactory, but there is at least a chance that the researcher is in a position to weigh the actual risks against the probable benefits. I have yet to see a case where "40 million Frenchmen" or their appointed political representatives have been right about any matter of science or technology (or ethics or morality, either).
ems@amdahl.UUCP (ems) (02/19/86)
In article <937@h-sc1.UUCP>, breuel@h-sc1.UUCP (thomas breuel) writes: > |ANY new experiment POSSIBLY may endanger the survival of our species. > |Unless you are willing to define: > | 1) What is a reasonable degree of certainty? > | 2) Who decides what the probability for disaster > | of a given experiment are? By what criteria? > | 3) Should or should not the possible benefits of such an > | experiment be weighed in the balance? Who judges the benefits? > |such talk is meaningless. ... > No, you cannot hide behind administrative mumbo-jumbo to avoid the question. > This is not a question of 'who decides' or 'how can we weigh'. If > YOU are a scientist and other people are uttering doubts about > the safety of YOUR experiments, you MUST take them seriously. > This is YOUR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY as a scientist. Umm, hows that again? I thought the first poster was making the case that there is always SOME uncertainty; and, therefor, some risk of destroying the human race, in any experiment. It is a matter of degree rather than kind. While I may hold that at some DEGREE of risk, we need restraint; I don't hold that at ANY risk we need restraint. At the same time, if ones peers are concerned, this might be a valid indicator of sufficient degree of risk... For instance (this is extreme, yes, but is intended to illustrate the idea of minescule but non zero risk): Say I planned to test a pesticide on fruit flies. The stuff is very mildly mutagenic. A virus in the fly is mutated to a lethal strain. End of human race. Does this mean no testing of pesticides? What about testing of soap? Drugs? Where to draw the line? At a REASONABLE probability. It is NOT impossible for a new virus to be created in this way. It could be created by the random action of cosmic rays, for that matter. It IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY. That is the nub. I think it is not hiding behind mumbo jumbo to address the fundamental issues. Unless you can prove that some experiment contains ABSOLUTLY NO RISK WHATSOEVER, the premise that the magnitude must be weighed is valid. -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything.