Hi Y'all,
Jim Clark wrote:
> I agree that these are the issues that scientists, as well as
> politicians and citizens have had to wrestle with. But these
> debates are completely independent of the question of the
> correctness of the underlying scientific ideas. The problem with
> putting the political considerations too early in the process
> (i.e., intruding them into science) is that they interfere with
> determining what is the correct characterization of the domain
> under study.
But this is exactly the point where some issues surrounding topics such as genetic
engineering and use of fetal tissue are currently being discussed. Science does
not operate independently of political, economic, human welfare, etc. concerns.
This is why it must be examined carefully at *all* points in the scientific
process.
Additionally, one's perceptions shape the determination of what is considered the
"correct characterization of the domain". There certainly does not seem to be a
consensus within psychology as to what is its "correct characterization". I don't
even think there is consensus on TIPS!
> For example, it would have been extremely
> disadvantageous for a conscientious democratic scientific
> community to have been hampered in the proper understanding of
> atomic power because of moral objections, while a less
> humanitarian collection of Axis nations pursued the use of atomic
> weapons.
If this had occurred, then clearly the Allied nations would have been ignoring the
political in relation to the scientific. How many advances are made in the entire
realm of weapons of mass destruction with the idea of deterrence and potential
retribution in mind? And what is the responsibility of the scientists involved if
they are used or misused? These are not easy ethical questions.
> As I stated earlier, the relation between knowledge and
> policy is not at all simple (i.e., it is extremely complex) and
> it should not be allowed to interfere with the development of
> correct knowledge in the first place. I believe that people who
> think otherwise are deluding themselves about the benefits of
> ignorance.
I'm not sure how one defines "correct knowledge" or who decides what is "correct
knowledge". And there are social and political aspects to these definitions. This
is part of what makes the issue so complex.
I do however, get the sense that anyone who disagrees with the idea that all
research and science should be developed without any interference (political,
ethical, etc.) is being described as "deluded" and tangentially being called
ignorant. This is not beneficial to the debate.
Warm regards,
linda
--
linda m. woolf, ph.d.
associate professor - psychology
webster university
main webpage: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/
Holocaust and genocide studies pages:
http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/holocaust.html
womens' pages: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/women.html
gerontology pages: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/gero.html
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
