Abortion: Should it be legalised
For your first blog, you need to discuss, with in-text citation and reference list, about the topic: 'Abortion: Should it be legalised.'
Remember to support all views and opinions. Please stay within the word limit (151 to 500 words).
This is due on 10th March 2014.
All the best.
Mr Brandon Tennakoon on behalf of Mr Samuel Cheong
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete" The formal education of most scientists does not encourage them to consider ethical issues" (The Media and the Ethics of Cloning, 1997)
ReplyDeleteAs the world is now developing rapidly in science, we often left behind our own basic ethics. Ethics are generally forgotten and over powered by science. Scientists keep on doing their experiments without thinking about the moral implications they may have. We have to open our eyes right now, unless you want to fall into a world with only science and no feelings at all.
Understanding between Scientists and Ethicists regarding each other's work is one of the solution to increase the concern about the importance of ethics in science. (The Media and the Ethics of Cloning,1997)
I completely agree with this statement. We must do mutual teaching in which the Scientists should be thought about Ethics and on the other hand Ethicists should be thought about Science. When they start to know more about each other, they will start to appreciate the other party. When they appreciate each other, they will start to see other's point of view.
There are a number of ways in which the practice of science generates ethical issues. Regarding the methods adopted in research (for instance, we can ask ‘Should we run placebo-controlled drug trials, or use animals in experimentation?’) (Teaching Ethics to Science Students: Challenges and a Strategy,2008). As for the animals, they also are living organisms, as they can feel,see,touch, taste the same things we feel. Hence,according to me, to test experiments on animals is a form of crime.
Teaching Ethics together with science in schools and education departments can be very effective to change the mindset of future generations. You should teach the children from very young age itself that Science and Ethics are very dependent upon each other. Before you can do research or experiments, think what are the ethical effects it may have.
Approximately 70% of the teachers supported the idea that scientiļ¬c topics, which treat values or social issues should be addressed in science courses, and over 60% of the teachers reported that they had actually dealt with value-laden issues in their classrooms.(Nwabr,2005).
‘‘I think it’s good teaching to show students that there are some
ethical issues out there in regard to science ...but I don’t think
it’s really my responsibility or my position.’’ .(Nwabr,2005). This was spoken by one of the participants in a survey. This shows how unaware we are to science and ethics. In the end, it is OUR duty and OUR responsibility, which includes everyone in this world to be aware and to take action to start teaching ethics to people around you. Stop doing experiments that may threatened any living organisms' life.
“Let me give you a definition of ethics: It is good to maintain and further life ,it is bad to damage and destroy life.”
Albert Schweitzer
Carrenia Cahyadi
Senior Class 1
ehh emangnya harus cite yeah website mana aja yang dipake yeah
DeleteDear Carrenia,
DeleteHow true. Teaching ethics to children from primary school level will foster a new generation who will be concerned for the well-being of humans and animals. It will encourage greater responsibility among scientists as they are fully aware of what it means to do no harm.
Great read.
Keep it up.
Mr Brandon Tennakoon
citation:
ReplyDelete'Chapter 11: Teaching Ethics to Science Students: Challenges and a Strategy' in Education and Ethics in the Life Sciences: Strengthening the Prohibition of Biological Weapons by Edited by Brian Rappert | ANU E Press. (n.d.). Home - ANU E Press - ANU. Retrieved from http://epress.anu.edu.au/apps/bookworm/view/Education+and+Ethics+in+the+Life+Sciences%3A+Strengthening+the+Prohibition+of+Biological+Weapons/9911/ch11.html
Institute for Science and Ethics - Institute for Science and Ethics. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ise.ox.ac.uk/
NWABR. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.nwabr.org/education/pdfs/Ethics2006/Socioscience.pdf
Carrenia Cahydi
Senior Class 1
With reference to the article, “ The Media and Ethics of Cloning”, I would like to comment about the first solution of the article which is about having a fuller understanding between scientist and ethicists of each other’s work.
ReplyDeleteNowadays, the world is becoming a lot more modernized than before. The creations of scientists have amazed a lot of people too and they have been helping people to have much easier lives. However, some of those creations are being told to stop by ethicists as scientists have been using live creatures to do their experiments. Scientists also have rights to carry on their experiments because it has been essential for our lives. Thus, scientist and ethicists need a fuller understanding of each other’s work and the solution for that is to include more courses in various scientific departments on the ethics of contemporary scientific research whereas ethicists need to be offered courses on the basic of human genetics, anatomy and such stuffs.
I agree on that solution. If scientists learn more about ethics, they might not use living creatures for their experiments. For eg, within the last two years, it has come to light that drug companies have paid private physicians to enroll their own patients in drug testing that is nontherapeutic and unrelated to the patients’ own health concerns.7 Often the testing is in areas beyond the physicians’ competence and training. Patients, trusting their physicians, have agreed to participate and have sometimes been harmed by the experiments, which is stated in the article called “Changing the Culture of Science”. Thus, they might feel for other living creatures if they learn more about ethics.
On the other hand, ethicists should not completely try to disagree with scientists to stop using living creatures and such stuffs for their experiments. They will know more about the advantages that they get because of the creations from scientists if they try to learn some scientific courses. For eg, like the research that scientists have been working on which is cloning mentioned in the “The Media and the Ethics of Cloning”. Cloning might become very useful in the future. Ethicists should let scientists use some animals as samples to do research on cloning.
“The moral principle inherent in evolution, that nothing can be gained in this world without and effort; the ethical principle inherent in evolution is that only the best has the right to survive; the spiritual principle in evolution is the evidence of beauty, of order, and of design in the daily myriad of miracles to which we owe our existence”, was quoted by Henry Fairfield Osborn in ‘Evolution and Religion’, New York Times on 5th of March 1922. This means that even we, humans sometimes have to be part of some experiments in order to gain something in this world.
My overall view will be that if scientists and ethicists have a fuller understanding, the world will be more modernized and will let people to have a much easier life in the near future.
Dear Phyo,
DeleteTreading the middle ground through gaining understanding of each others work will certainly allow for a more conducive environment in which scientist and ethicist can indeed produce results that are more palatable for both parties.
Good job.
Keep it up.
Mr Brandon Tennakoon
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFrom my point of view I agree more with the second solution that is Ethicists need to do a better job of presenting their concerns in the popular media. Ethicists definitely need to improve and put more effort to the moral implications of the discoveries they report. Since, the media, perhaps more than any other slice of culture, influence what we think and talk about, what we take to be important, what we worry about. Journals which contain about ethicals aspects of scientific topics are not popular at all since people don’t usually bother reading to it. In order to grab reader’s attention ethicists need to do more wider promotions not just through scietific journals.
ReplyDeleteHastings Center Report, the Journal of Medical Ethics and the Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics which are described as ‘popular academic journals’ are no longer in the popular category anymore because with the fast improving technology nowadays, people tend to spend more of their time on televsions and radios insteads of reading journals. A good example of a scientist is Arthur Caplan, he wrote a column for a newspaper about science, presenting the moral implications of the medical and scientific research. The schools and universities have to do that so the students can learn and debate their points.
The last presented point is Expand Public Debate. The author says, “We need to expand public debate about ethical issues in science beyond the mass media”. Creating forums will definitely help to debate some points of view from civilians. So, Ethicist need to use more popular means of media so that they can spread wider and faster informations to the viwers and also can help to imporve the consciousness of the issues of ethics.
The character ethic, which I believe to be the foundation of success, teaches that there
are basic principles of effective living, and that people can only experience true success
and enduring happiness as they learn and integrate these principles into their basic
character. (Covey, Stephen R.)
May
Senior Class 1
Dear May,
DeleteThanks for your insights into this matter.
I have read them and you have brought issues that have been raised in the article.
Continue to improve.
Mr Brandon Tennakoon
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAccording to this topic as “The media and ethics of Cloning”, I would like to recommend and mention the first solution of the graph on the hand out which is the most understanding and clearly in working between scientist and ethictist .
ReplyDeleteFor overview, my opinion that I agree with this point and solution of the graph. Understanding the work is really important in working, which can seek to the succeed of the consequence. Baed on the line, they go straight to the right point in doing research of scientist that is the moral implication and address the implication. The implication,one of the main factor which related to the research that affected in many way. As they informed, that the formal education do not encourage and support the information to consider ethical issues. The ethical issues as known as the use of genetically modified organisms is a practice still in its infancy. The long-term effects of this technology are yet to be seen, and thus we must proceed with caution as we develop our practices and guidelines. But in most of the school of medicine and nursing, they found out that the schools provide for students which is graduate students in such discipline as human genetics, biochemistry,…. For over all, ethicists should improve their knowledge before they start to comment and judge about moral issues.
Besides, I would agree to the idea that it is necessary to include more courses in various scientific departments on the ethic contempary scientific research, also consists the basic of human genetics,… this is good opportunity to bring scientist and scholars in the humanities.This will bring more advantages and benefits to the ethicists’s knowledge. Also they could establish countinuing- education, this will open a new gate and new way for development of the research.
To conclude, I want to recommend one more time about fuller-understanding between the scientists and ethicsts, they should know how to balance for both side and get advantages for all which can lead the society to become better and more modern.
“To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advance in science”
- Albert Einstein quotes
“New discoveries in science will continue to create a thousand new frontiers for those who still would adventure”
- Herbert Hoover quotes
Lian
Senior class 2
http://www.searchquotes.com/search/Ethics_Science/3/
Dear Lian,
DeleteRightly put.
With more exchange of knowledge between scientists and ethicists, both parties can gain a better understanding of the constraints.
Keep up the good work.
Mr Brandon Tennakoon
With the article: The Media and Ethics of Cloning, I would like to comment about the second solution which said that ethicists need to do a better job of presenting their concerns in the popular media.
ReplyDeleteEthics is always a two-sided coin with your repution and your livelihood on the line. With that in mind, I would like to give you several common ethical dilemmas that will occurs:
Firstly is the fine line of spamming which means that instead of spamming, if we want to promote our companies and products, we should provide good information about the product, talk about the subjects beyond your company.
Secondly is having feuds with others. This situation occurs because it is easy to have an argument in social network sites but social media is about to help others, not putting them down so public feuds is likely to damage your reputation then help it
Finally, one of social media’s core is transparency, clear and clean. But lying is a complete opposite of that.social media has revealed so many liars that is not worth the risk.
I agree with the way of improving public debate on these importat issues is for universities to encourage their faculty members to write for newspaper, popular magazines and even community newsletters. If universities are to retain their public support, they must be seen as an important players in society.
“The public has an insatiable curiosity to know everything. Except what is worth knowing. Journalism, conscious of this, and having tradesman-like habits, supplies their demands.” -- Oscar Wilde
Ethics are professional rules that define how different groups of people should behave. If we want to have a clear social media, we should have a transparent platform and being honest at the first place
Tran Minh Anh - Mia
Senior class 1
http://www.openforum.com/idea-hub/topics/technology/article/social-media-ethics-4-common-dilemmas-1/
Dear Minh Anh,
DeleteI do not quite agree with your first argument. Spamming isn't the result of lack of communication or understanding between each other
What is true is that there is a need for transparency when working and dealing with the public.
Continue to improve.
Mr Brandon Tennakoon
In the article "The Media and the Ethics of Cloning", Leigh Turner mentions that scientists and ethicists need a fuller understanding of each other’s work. "We need to include more courses in various scientific departments on the ethics of contemporary scientific research; offer courses for ethicists on the basics of human genetics, anatomy, and physiology; and establish continuing-education courses and forums that bring together scientists and scholars in the humanities."
ReplyDeletePerhaps it is a good solution for scientists and ethicists to gain knowledge on one anothers' studies, so as to have a better mutual understanding on each other's views. However, many scientists believe that science should be autonomous or left to its own internal dynamic in deciding how to define scientific problems, what research to pursue, and how to conduct research (Lacey, H. 1999). According to this view, these decisions should be governed only by scientific considerations, such as which theories are supported by evidence or which research projects appear to be the most scientifically promising (Wolpert, L. 1999).
The belief that science should be autonomous, or free of interference from ethical, political, or other social values, presupposes that such values are irrelevant to making decisions about 1) what constitutes an important area of scientific study, 2) how research questions should be framed, 3) which research projects should be funded or given priority, and 4) which methodologies are the most appropriate in conducting scientific research (Lacey, H.(1999), Haack, S. (1998))
In conclusion, I feel that it is not only about whether an ethicist be educated on scientific studies or vice versa, rather, the solution should also address how scientists and ethicists can ensure that value judgments used to regulate science will be adequately supported and informed by empirical evidence, including evidence about the nature of the science in question.
Reference
Fasebj | Mobile. (n.d.). Fasebj Mobile. Retrieved from http://m.fasebj.org/content/22/3/654.full#xref-ref-15-1
Loe Yong Sheng Shauon
Senior Class 1
Dear Shauon,
DeleteI like your contribution of opposing view points and you ability to sum them up and present it in your conclusion.
It is important that all value judgments are supported adequately by empirical evidence.
Enjoyed your session and keep up the good work.
Thanks for posting in these trying times.
Mr Brandon Tennakoon
In the article “The media and ethics of cloning”, I would like to agree with the first solution of article that is a fuller understanding between scientists and ethicists of each other’s work
ReplyDeleteNowadays, the world and social become more modernized because of developing invention by scientists. However, scientists do their experiences without ethics on job which they need to have. Therefore, scientist and ethicists need to have a fuller understanding in working.
The first is the moral and address implication which scientists have to recognize clearly. According to the article, the formal education does not encourage and assist scientists about information to consider issues in ethics. Conversely, almost schools of medicine and nursing which provide and support for graduate students in disciplines, such as, human genetics, animal physiology and biochemistry. Besides, ethicists need to improve knowledge in science which they lack of.
Secondly, I also completely agree that “need to include more courses in various scientific departments on the ethics of contemporary scientific research”. These courses will provide and support ethicists more knowledge, such as human genetics, anatomy and physiology. Moreover, the continuing-education should establish and develop which will bring both of scientists and scholars in humanities.
In conclusion, ethic is the moral behavior in humans and ethic is really important in the life. In science, ethic is necessary for scientist that they keep on experiments. They should understand fully between the scientists and ethicists that can be greater and bring lost of invention within ethics.
DO THU NGA- Mia
Senior Class 1
Dear Mia,
DeleteThank you for your contribution.
You need to cite the sources where you got them from. Please remember to that in the future. For this assignment, there will be a small penalty for not citing.
Continue to do your best.
Mr Brandon Tennakoon
“ Scientists and ethicists need to understand better each other’s work “ (The media and the ethics of cloning- written by Leigh Turner)
ReplyDeleteBased on the article and the statement particularly, I would agree totally with it. As the civilization of mankind has rapidly developed and so does sciences . Science comes up with many new inventions in many aspects , especially in medicine of the industry and it sometimes goes far beyond the ethics which should be limited at.
One example we can see clearly the ethical issue scientists are facing is the experiments on white mouse to come up the new vaccines to test its safety before releasing to apply for people’s immune body. When the mouse is applied the testing vaccines, they have to suffer with the diseases and could lose their lives . Noticeably, they do not even know how the animals are feeling as they are also live species like human being. It is either categorized into a criminal group in the Buddhist bibles
Besides that, ethicists also comment on scientific products regardless of the knowledge shortage in science . Very few ethicists can be able to understand the importance of science and its role in the real life and they keep judging on it harshly . Sometimes, there is no alternative way for scientists do their experiments which is supposed to abuse the ethics. For instance , to treat genetic diseases , we only can do it by altering DNA but some people consider this as being against nature or God. So, the ethical issues is whether scientists show be allowed to use gene therapy.
To sum up, We should educate the people who wants to be or who have potential to be a scientist to know how to do or come up new things ethically. Similarly , we also should offer courses for ethicists on the basics of scientific knowledge , anatomy and physiology which can bring scientists and ethicists closer.
Reference : BBC - GCSE Bitesize: Ideas about science - ethical issues. (n.d.). BBC - Homepage. Retrieved fromhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/21c_pre_2011/genetics/geneticdiseasesrev3.shtml
Name : Ho Hoang Tu
Senior Class 1
Dear Hoang Tu,
DeleteYou are right in stating that religion can guide us in our views.
There is a delicate balance between sacrificing the few for the many. Some feel that i life sacrificed is too much.
Good effort.
Keep it up.
Mr Brandon Tennakoon
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the article “The media and ethics of cloning”,I would like to agree with the final solution of article that is we need to expand public debate about ethical issues in science beyond the mass media.
ReplyDeleteToday,people of science and technology is more and more developed,we need to expand public debate about ethical issues in science beyond the mass media ,this is very important.To complement the activities of the national bioethics advisory commission and the projects on ethics at universities and research centers, we should create forums at which academics and citizens from all walks of life could meet to debate the issues,that can help people to understand.Because the ethical issues, problems caused by the mass media and technology for interactive debate scientists and the media will be able to communicate with each other, people will be able to better understand the truth.
Beside,with the technology is more and more developed, such as cloning technology, people desire to understand the technology more and more intense, how effective scientific and technological achievements, and information sent to the people, the mass media needs to be done now.
Name:fanrui
senior class 1
Dear Fan Rui,
DeleteThank you for attempting this assignment.
I like your views on this issue.
Keep up your effort.
Mr Brandon Tennakoon
Why/How do we need to expand public debates about ethical issues in science beyond the mass media?
ReplyDeleteAs nowadays not everyone can understand the full meaning of ethics and what are the ethical issues which are included in science, we should expand public debates about it, so public would understand, they would start to think about it and maybe even find solutions for these ethical issues, which we can meet in this century.
Most of the people studying science have no idea, what are the ethical issues you can meet in science, for many of them it doesn’t make any sense. If you start to learn more about it and learn it deeply, if you will start to listen to it and to talk about it, you will think about these issues, you will understand them. So that’s why people decided to expand public debates about it and first of all to let people talk, argue, disagree or agree with it.
We can meet ethical issues in different parts of life, so if you understand what are they, why and how, you will understand what is ethics overall.
“How we conceive of and understand ethics and ethical issues is affected by waves of reform and new understandings of what happens in the public sector. Despite the change that comes with reform, enduring tensions and questions remain. An important one which has both fascinated and frustrated scholars and practitioners has been the separation of politics and administration, and the proper roles of key actors in this equation. As a third generation of reform takes hold a debate has emerged as to the merits (or not) of one approach – public value. In part the debate takes us back to these enduring tensions and questions raising important ethical issues in the process”. (Janine L. O'Flynn ; Australian National University (ANU) – Crawford ;School of Public Policy; Australia and New Zealand School of Government;November 26, 2009)
I think that people should create forums at which everyone would be allowed to talk, to share their thoughts with others, where students and citizens would like as well as dislike something, agree or disagree. Also we should create groups or do meetings for specialists in these issues, which non-specialists would attend and get fuller understanding of the problems, where people would be free to communicate.
What we have now is media, where just several presenters are talking about it and all of them are the same, they have similar opinions and views, but when people have organizations or meeting, all of them are having different points of view. And public don’t have to wait when do presenters will talk about ethical issues, as there is always a chance they won’t even mention it.
In some places people/government/educational institutions thought about such problem and they created events where people can feel free to communicate about issues we have nowadays, for example the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics was created in 2003 within the Philosophy Faculty at the University of Oxford. The Uehiro Centre seeks to raise public awareness and understanding of ethical issues throughout the United Kingdom and internationally, through an active program of public lecturing, media comment and consultation with practitioners and public figures. Centre staff are active throughout the world lecturing, conducting workshops and engaging in public and media debate. Specialist ethical assessment and advisory services may be available on a consultative basis.
So this is what we should do nowadays, to provide people understanding and freedom to talk and think.
Dear Mariya,
DeleteI like the reference to what was done by the people at Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics. It is important for organisations to play an active role in educating the public. When organisations take an active role, employees will sense the importance and be more involved.
Well done.
Keep up the good work.
Mr Brandon Tennakoon
ReplyDeleteScience is still now as important as it was before , since it is what keeps us moving forward to the future, to a ‘better’ world that everyone is trying to create. But if we slow down for a moment to think about it, we will be surprise about what we are foreting in this rapid-growing world, which one of them is ethics. Overwhemled by the power of science, we seem to ignore (on purpose or not) the aspect of ethics to focus on productivity. Whether it is our fault (the people), or the scientists’ fault, it is important that now ethicists and scientists need to know about each other’s works, hence get a wider view to get them the element of balance in their work.
This statement was once mentioned in “The Media and the Ethics of Cloning (1997)” by Leigh Turner, which I strongly agree and therefore have done some research about it. If both sit together and have a discussion about their work, they will surely lighten each other’s point of view and appreciation along with it. But how is that going to help them doing a better job in the future? It is the matter of respect. If there are respects among them, there will be respects among their work too. Ethictist will reconsider their view about scientists’ work, whether it is ‘brutal, unfair, non-human etc’ or not if it is necessary for the ‘betters’, for what we will be needing in the future to survive (test vacxin on animal to prevent deathly disease). Scientists will put in their mind the issue of ethics while doing experiment, creating invention (limit experiment on animal, avoid harmful invention like nuclear bomb, bio weapon etc) that has caused some serious damage to the world as we know today. Extinction of various kinds of animals, world war I and II is also partly done by our modern science with misuse.
One other thing that we can do to bring science and ethics closer together is throuh mass media. If newspaper, television start mentioning the ethics issue to the public more often, people will have a broader view about them. And when ‘the people’ are aware of both side of the story, everyone will be more careful from now on, thus our future generation will be able to avoid the mistake that we have made today.
“A man without ethics is a wild beast loosed upon this world” - Albert Camus. This comment does not support any particular party, but it is worth to think that somehow science are moving us down in term of humanity, and some obsolete ethics values in other hand are holding us from developing toward our future.
References:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/ethics.html
http://www.ise.ox.ac.uk/
Dear Mic,
DeleteWhat you said about respect for each other is so true as respect for each other's work can be the result of having respect for each other.
Good effort. You need to improve on your grammar.
Keep up the good work.
Mr Brandon Tennakoon
“Scientists and ethicists need a fuller understanding of each other’s work”. This statement by Leigh Turner in his 1997 publication, ‘The Media and Ethics of Cloning’ would indicate that there is a lack of comprehension between the scientific community and the understanding of the mass community in regards to the necessity of certain scientific research. One of his solutions to this problem was the possible introduction of courses “in various scientific departments on the ethics of contemporary scientific research” and “on the basics of human genetics, anatomy, and physiology” for humanities scholars. This approach to educate people with a basic understanding of science and the benefits that it could possibly bring, together with the knowledge of what should and should not be done is possibly one of the most important measures that can be taken.
ReplyDeleteIn today’s world, scientific progress has become a fundamental component in society, and its rapid rise of has often led to challenges, if not direct clashes with traditionally-held values.(Iaccarino, 2001) The term ethics refers to a “branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles” (Macmillan, 2002) and has traditionally been viewed in Western society as a set of social and personal values. In the case of cloning, one of the chief issues can be said to be the possible misuse of the technology for criminal purposes, ranging from identity-theft to the trafficking of human-clones as slaves and the devaluation of life as individuals and groups of people are seen to be replaceable.(Brock, n.d.) However, cloning technology could also be possibly used to benefit society, with the potential to create replacement organs and limbs for individuals with damaged ones.
The issues mentioned are just some examples of the possible applications of scientific technology, specifically cloning technology. There are proponents of ‘pure’ scientific research who argue that the advancement of knowledge through scientific progress should be considered neither good nor bad and that science should not be held responsible for the applications of research results.(Iaccarino, 2001) They argue that science should be independent of or free of interference and restrictions based on ethical or social values that are irrelevant in the process of making decisions and that the process of conducting their research should be based upon empirical evidence alone.(Lacey, 2003)
However, others argue that the decision to conduct scientific research and its process should also be governed by a set of moral standards, and that to do otherwise, especially in fields concerning living organisms, would be to violate the rights of humans and animals. An example of this would be in embryonic stem-cell research. The major issue in this case revolves around the possible violations of human rights and dignity as those against it argue that such research essentially leads to the deaths of unborn children while proponents argue that such research could lead to the technology to grow replacement organs and should therefore continue.(Iaccarino, 2001) These arguments are further fuelled by misunderstandings between the scientific community and the majority of society which lacks the proper knowledge of the scientific process to properly analyse its results.
In the end, I personally feel that a greater understanding of both the scientific process and the ethical and moral implications of certain fields of research would help in bridging the gap between the social masses and the scientific community. However, I also feel that the potential avenues that scientific research offers for the betterment of people as a whole should not be ignored, and that we should fully consider both the potential positive and negative effects that fields of research such as cloning may result in rather than making decisions and statements based on limited understanding of the issue.
Francis Phang
Senior Class 1
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSources:
DeleteBrock, D. W. (n.d.). Cloning Human Beings: An Assessment of the Ethical Issues Pro and Con. Bioethics Research Library at Georgetown University. Retrieved from http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/nbac/pubs/cloning2/cc5.pdf
Iaccarino, M. (2001, September 15). Science and ethics. National Center for Biotechnology Information. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1084045/
Lacey, H. (2003). The Behavioral Scientist Qua Scientist Makes Value Judgements. Behavior.org | Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies. Retrieved from http://behave.org/resources/135.pdf
Macmillan Education Ltd. (2002). In Macmillan English dictionary for advanced learners (p. 470). Oxford, U.K.: Macmillan Education.
Dear Francis,
DeleteI love how you presented both sides of the argument.
Also, your conclusion suggests a balanced view which is important for both parties to work closely.
Keep up the good work.
Mr Brandon Tennakoon
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the passage “scientists and ethicists need a fuller understanding of each other’s work” . This is the point that I absolutely agree. Actually the understand between the scientist and ethicists is very important for the moral in social. Scientists must know the moral implication of their research and how damages will appear from their research. For example, they used to use the mouse to test the radiation from the handphone. They put 32 mouse into a cage and put the GSM phone behind the cage 50 days. Finally all the brains of the mouse are blood vessel burst and nerve cells damage. In my own view, this is really inhuman. We sharing the same world with all the animals. The world is not just for human. All the animals also have the same felling that we have. They have their mood; their pain and their thinking. Use their innocent body to do research is too selfish.
ReplyDeletewhatever the most of the education for scientists are not to consider about the ethical issues, the courses that offer to the scientists can make them more comprehend the ethicists works. Scientists will be more consider about the moral implication in the future works.
In addition, “include more courses in various scientific departments on the ethics o contemporary scientific research; offer courses for ethicists on the basics of human genetics, anatomy, and physiology.” This is the other view that I agree. The human genetics is the point that the scientists should be attention on it. In the movie” cloud atlas”, we can see the clone people swallowing the normal human life. There will be a war if the scientists clone the people. So the courses about the ethicists on the basics of human genetics is indispensable.
In summary, the wonderful world is provide for all the life in this world. Including all the animals. We are the family , cannot live without each other. That is goosey to get little benefit from hurt our family. Science can make our social life to be more convenient, but not the end of our life.
Dear Jiefei,
DeleteThanks for attempting the assignment.
Please note you need to cite who and where you got the quote from.
I like you example to show how inhumane humans can be to animals. This furthers emphasizes the need for scientist to be educated in ethics.
you need to cite.
Keep writing and do not be discouraged.
Mr Brandon Tennakoon
In the article "The Media and the Ethics of Cloning", I would like to comment about the first solution is having a fuller understanding between scientist and ethicists of each other’s work.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I will talk about this problem because it is the key of this article. In my opinion scientist and ethicists understanding of each other's work is very necessary, scientist need to know their Scientists need to know their study will bring what kind of impact to society, there are a lot of scientists accept education, let they don't consider the moral problems, but now the institute is very pay attention to ethics, most ethicists also know a little of scientific knowledge, even so, some of them feel they have a right to comment on new scientific moral problems are found, this knowledge gap formed on ethical issues a not accurate.
Secondly,Even if cloning technology has made achievement in today's society, some people may think that cloning technology can bring convenient to people's life, but some people think it will be in trouble, in my point of view, cloning technology has yet to mature, scientists need more strong more experimental investigation to cloning technology, it is not only the problems facing scientists and ethicists also, scientists and ethicists need team work, let people know that the cloning technology is complete, is to help people.
In conclusion,Science scholars and citizens need to include the media support, is the most important thing, scientists and ethicists cooperate with each other, science is a symbol of modern society, it records the process of human evolution, it is like a road, and the clone is one of the indispensable stone, I believe that one day people will identify with the cloning technology.
Yang kai wen （Kevin）
Senior Class 1
Dear Kai Wen,
DeleteThank you for participating in the assignment.
Please remember to cite your sources.
You point that both scientist and ethicists need to work together.
Do not give up and continue to do your best.
Mr Brandon Tennakoon
From the article “The media and the ethics of cloning” I would like to comment on the second solution, ethicists need to do a better job of presenting their concerns in the popular media.
ReplyDeleteEthicists should improve their skills of presenting concerns to people because nowadays people don’t believe in the ethics theories. People believe the scientists because they have evidence to their theories. Also people are interested in the theories of scientists. The ethicists do not have enough evidence or proof to their theories. For example the scientists provide excellent popular accounts of scientific research and technological developments. As technology is improving rapidly people do not read books and the books are not being used to get information. People rather use the internet, as most of the ethics theories are in books, which were written long time ago.
People believe that the ethics theories are not true and they are not interesting. The ethicists should use different ways of popular media which trending nowadays. So people can know more about ethics.
Dear Chirag,
DeleteIt is true that people are more comfortable with things pertaining to science more than things pertaining to ethicists.
It is important for ethicist to know how to appeal to the masses through popular media.
Please also remember to cite properly.
Do not be discouraged. Keep up your effort.
Mr Brandon Tennakoon
Upon reading the article " The media and the Ethics of Cloning", I agree with the first solution that states that ethicists need a fuller understanding of each other’s work. Since The massive majority of scientists doing research have had no formal training in research ethics so which means that ethicists have been poorly mentored in research ethics, and faculty who were instructed by the same methods may themselves be lacking an ethics education. In order to prevent the misunderstandings and confusion between ethicists, which can lead to ethical issues with one another, they to recognize the moral implications of their work by taking courses about ethics, psychology and anatomy and understand fully about those courses and if they take these courses they would know how to be prepared when they’re experimenting with animals. I agree with the author that ethicists should pay less attention to the media’s interest in cloning humans and they should concentrate more on the science that can help them a lot when they have immediate public debate Thus, I think that ethics education can enable scientists to place their positions into a logical framework from which they can look for consistent approaches to related problems, which will definitely help to bring the scientists and scholars in the humanities together.
ReplyDeleteDear Mong Tao,
DeleteRemember to cite where you got your information from.
I like how you mentioned that knowledge of ethics can guide the work of scientists.
You need to improve and provide more original insights.
Do not give up.
Mr Brandon Tennakoon
In the article ‘The Media and the Ethics of Cloning’, there are three solutions that scholars, policy maker, and concerned citizens can, in fact, work to improve public debate about ethical issues related to new developments in science and technology, which are suggested by Leigh Turner. I would like to comment for the first solution; scientists and ethicists need a fuller understanding of each other’s work.
ReplyDeleteSince the world nowadays becomes high technology, scientists have the ability to do cloning. Cloning is making an identical copy of. Yet most of scientists and ethicists are not fuller understand about each other. As in the article schools of medicine and nursing, graduate students in such discipline as human genetic, biochemistry and animal physiology are not encouraged to grapple with the ethical aspects of their research. Also for ethicists have very little knowledge of science.
Each year, more than 100 million animals – including mice, rats, frogs, dogs, cats, rabbits are killed in US laboratories for testing and experimentation. Before their deaths, some are forced to inhale toxic fumes, others are immobilized in restraint devices for hours, some have holes drilled into their skull, and some have their skin burn. This is show that they got low educated in ethic.
In conclusion, schools of medicine and nursing should educate scientist students more about the ethic. Same thing for ethicists, they should get more knowledge of science. I strongly supported for this suggestion. I believe that the more knowledge scientists get the lesser of research and experiment on living things.
Name: Kim Ratanavatey
Class: Senior 1
Dear Kim,
DeletePlease remember to cite where you got your sources from.
Your example of mice inhaling toxic fumes brings home the point that scientists need to be taught ethics.
Do not give up.
Keep up the good work.
Mr Brandon Tennakoon
From my point of view, I totally agree with the first solutions of this article, the media and the ethics of cloning. Scientists and ethicists need a fuller understanding of each other’s work. It’s very important to understand each other’s work. The problem is mostly, scientists never have ethic and as the same way serious ethicists and religions won’t be able to have science knowledge. As a result, it has become an argumentation and problems between them. We should teach science students about ethics since primary school and we need to have more courses about moral implications and ethics for scientists. Summarily, ethicists should try to understand about science rather than commenting about moral issues.
ReplyDeleteNowadays, the whole world is covering with scientific discoveries such as pharmaceutical products, electronic devices and so on. Without scientific researches, human cannot survive to live longer. Scientists test these pharmaceutical products with the animals. Ethicists and Religions might think that it’s killing to their lives as they are also living organisms and they can feel all the same way as we do. So, they might against the testing with animals. However, if the scientists did not test with the animal, would people like to be their tester? I’m sure, no body will do. As for me, it’s good because human has to survive to live longer and healthier. According to the movie “cloud atlas”, cloning people is dangerous and it is look like disturbing the real human’s life. However, if the scientists clone to the animals, they can be used these clone animals in testing scientific discoveries. It can also sustain the real animals to live longer in the world.
As a conclusion, scientists should debate more about cloning animals in public places and offer the courses for ethicists on the basics of human genetics, anatomy and physiology and establish continuing education courses and forums that bring together scientists and scholars in the humanities.
Eint Myet Thwai
Senior class 1.
Dear Eint Myet Thwai,
DeletePlease remember to cite where you got your information from.
You need to improve in expressing yourself.
I like how you used a movie to illustrate your point.
Do not give up. Continue to improve.
MR Brandon Tennakoon
Samuel Cheng En Chin- Senior Class 1
ReplyDeleteOne of the solution to get the balance between "The Media and Ethics of Cloning" is improving public debate on these important issues is for universities to encourage their faculty members to write for newspaper. Is that necessary to bring this debate to media, any advantages to do that?
Firstly, if the scientists and ethicists bring the debates to media, they can show the public that what are the points and opinions that they are persisting. The public needs more information from ethicists and scientists in order to have a better conclusion on the cloning issue. Most of the people would have a sense of moral values which were planted by the education and the cultures. Scientists need to provide the scientific knowledge in order to tell people that the cloning is ethical.
Secondly, the scientists and ethicists need to know the ideas from public towards those issues. The concept of scientists and ethicists of the cloning are based on their specialty, they would try to protect their concept by using their professional knowledge as their weapon. After a long time, they would become narrow-minded and could not accept the oppositing remarks. If the issue can be freely debated in media, so that the scientists and ethicists can receive the ideas from public. The ideas from public can be easier to be accepted instead of the opponent.
In conclusion, the media is playing a role of medium, it provides a space for the professionals and public to debate and convey their idea and have a fairer debate.
Dear Samuel,
DeleteThank you for the effort put in. Remember to cite your sources.
It is important for scientists and ethicists to get a good understanding of the public's views on cloning or other controversial issues.
Do not give up and you will improve.
Mr Brandon Tennakoon
Moral can be defined as based on what you believe is right rather than what the rules or law say is right.As stated in the text the problems faced by scientists and the public is that scientist lack the understanding of moral implications that their research have and similarly most ethicists have very little knowledge of science but many feel perfectly entitled to comment on the moral issues of new scientific discoveries. It is argued that morality is taught since childhood and how you were brought up but mainly the most influential aspect is your education through out primary till the end. So in therefore each person moral vary from one another, it is true to achieve more efficient and usable research/ new technological advances such as cloning scientists has to start asking themselves what might the consequence of action be, what obligations might the protagonist have and what professional norms and values give rise to. Secondly scientists could join in discussions instead of just researching in their labs without knowing the moral implications of their research, with joining in the discussion they would be able to see two sides to the story and by knowing the other sides arguments scientists would be able to give a better and logical counter-argument that the public could relate and accept. In conclusion both scientist and ethicists have their own arguments and in the end no one is really correct or wrong since everyones opinion varies and have their own sets of believe, therefore one solution is always to have open discussions and always try to understand ones reasoning and try to counter that argument rationally
ReplyDeletesources:
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/moral
http://www.eval.org/gptraining/GP%20Training%20Final/gp.article.pdf
Bryan Guan Senior 1
Dear Bryan,
DeleteThank you for stating your sources in the reference section. There is a need to include in-text citation when using information obtained from other sources.
You brought up a good point that with knowledge of how the public feels, scientist can come up with a better counter-argument. Knowing what the public thinks can also cause the scientist to re-think what they are doing if there is a chance that their research can harm animals.
Keep up the good work.
Mr Brandon Tennakoon
Based on article "The Media and the Ethics of Cloning",written by Leigh turner.He published that scientist and ethicist need a fuller understanding of each other is work and formal education does not pushed them.In today’s world scientist doing an experiment without moral implication and scientist does not address the implication that they have.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the first solution of the statement, The main problem is scientist do not have a full understand of humanities and ethicists do not have full understand of science .Scientist doing an experiment without consider the animal is in pain or not for example cloning of the animal according to the article(Media and the Ethics of Cloning), Scientist do not realize that the animal which have tested is in pain.Millions of living organisms such as animals are poisoned and killed each year in barbaric test(mcneal) for example Draize 24-hour Patch Test and Dermal Toxicity tests is a test of a skin irritancy, it use immobilized animals, most of them are rabbits and guinea pigs.The process involves placing chemicals on the animals’ raw, shaved it skin and covering the skin with adhesive plaster(mcneal). Animals may suffer irritated skin, bleeding, or bloody scabs (mcneal). According to the Animal Welfare Report (AWR) published by the United States Department of Agriculture(USDA), research facilities are not required to report the number of rats, mice, or birds that are used in laboratories (Mcneal). Sadly, this group of animals represents of 90% in the laboratory animal population (Mcneal). It proves that animal may have suffer greatly.Government should make a course of physcology subject more inside science subject.Government should make a requirement of physcology test to enter a science university then it makes undergraduate student understand about humanities.For ethicists, government must make a science education more to the ethicist so ethicists will know about how science things works.
In conclusion Scientist and ethicists, they need a better education whether it is science or physcology course and they need fully understanding each other.It makes scientist understand how they feel if they become animal that have experimented and makes ethicists know about how scientist have to work in his duty.
If they understand each other, there will be no experiment to animals anymore, because if the experiment of animal still happen,soon or later human also can become an objective experiment.
Reference : Mcneal, K. R. (n.d.). American Bar Association. Retrieved from http://apps.americanbar.org/environ/committees/lawstudents/pdf/mcneal.pdf
In the article, “The Media and the Ethics of Cloning”, one of Leigh Turner’s proposed solutions is about how scientists and ethicists require a fuller understanding of each other’s work. In lay man terms, scientists need to learn about ethics and ethicists needs to learn about science. Leigh Turner proposed this as a solution with evidence from his article, “The formal education of scientist does not encourage them to consider ethical issues” and “Ethicists have very little knowledge of science.”
ReplyDeleteI agree with the said proposed solution by Turner. It is always better to have a better insight from different angles. Even though it is known that many scientists believes that science is science and that other factors, such as ethics does not matter. Ethics is the study of good and evil, of what ought to be. We study ethics to better understand our actions and to live a morally bound life.
In my opinion, our lifestyle has gone beyond modernized and for scientist to learn about ethics, it provides certain boundaries for them and for ethicists to learn about science, it gives them a better idea before they make a judgement about science.
Dear Yash,
DeleteIndeed, we hope that knowing ethics will allow people to live a more moral live. But...
Also, by knowing more about each other's areas of work, both parties can better judgment calls.
Keep up the effort.
Mr Brandon Tennakoon
I could not agree more with the author's first solution, which is, scientist and ethicist need a fuller understanding of each other's work. Scientist must recognize the moral implications of their research and address those implications when they discuss the research in public. As we probably know, scientists' formal education usually does not cover ethical issues, and that does not encourage them to know much about it. The other way around, ethicists don't really know much about science as well.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, what we have here is a gap in understanding between each other. From ethicist point of view, life is precious, life is more important than progress. While from scientist point of view, progress is more important, they would sacrifice some lives to achieve progress for the rest of human beings. Both scientists and ethicists have different point of view. And that may lead to a conflict. But in the end, as human beings, they both want to grow and the world to be better.
But a lot of scientists are doing their research in a wild way against the ethics of human being, by wild I mean they do not consider the ethics, they do not know the moral implication of it, they're just doing it in the sake of science and hunger of unimplicable knowledge. According to David B. Resnik, the NIEHS IRB Chairman and a Bioethicist, scientists should hold ethical principals while doing their research, some of them which are honesty, integrity, social responsibility, non discrimination, competence, animal care and human subject protection.
An example of unethical scientific research would be the 1953 scientific journal "Clinical Science" where 41 children ranged in age 8 to 14 were the subjects of "cantharide", this caused the skin to blistered badly. The experiment purpose was to show how severely the substance injures the skin, After the experiment, the children's blistered skin was removed with scissors and swabbed with peroxide. Those scientist had clearly broke the ethics of scientific research.
I personally think that the scientist are doing a good job so far and they have been contributing a lot of things to the human civilization. But it would be so much better if the scientist can mastermind and debate with the ethicist, tell them what each other's purposes are and ask for feedback. That way, they can have a fuller understanding of each others work.
Nicholas
Senior Class 1
Dear Nicholas,
DeleteYou have used a good example to highlight the need for scientists to know about ethics.
Keep up the good work.
Mr Brandon Tennakoon
Yes I do agree that both scientists and Ethicists must have a fuller and a better understanding of each other's work in order to come to a proper single everlasting conclusion which would therefore convince the people of the world to follow what is Right and in order to lead a Good eternal life without making life a very messed up swamp filled with uncountable confusions and doubts. So in the first place, yes I would say that the Ethicists must have some basic scientific facts, informations and knowledge about the world of science and their latest technologies discovered and invented these days. And on the other hand the scientists must also be humble enough to acknowledge some facts, informations and philosophical points of the Ethicists to understand what and why are the Ethicists going about their work in certain types and kinds of ways. In overall scientists must realise that life is more important and should be more concerned about rather than only experiments, discoveries, inventions and progresses. Also most importantly scientists have to compulsorily be sure and make sure that what ever they do, they are Morally not doing anything wrong. Because if morally they do anything that is wrong, they are going to pay the consequences and go under serious pain and finally be kicked out of their way of leading life by the Ethicists and other people of the world. I would finally like to conclude by saying that, as long as scientists do not follow Moral values, whether they are doing experiments or what ever inventions, they will make life more miserable and finally get themselves knocked out by the world. Thus no matter how much both scientists and Ethicists understand each other, but after all, I stand with Ethicists and say that cloning is not allowed since, we must follow God's orders and not try to consider our selves as supreme beings.
ReplyDeleteDear Samay,
DeletePlease always remember you need to cite your sources.
What was mentioned about scientists needing to be morally responsible is true. If scientist are giving free reign to experiment as they please, then progress will overtake ethics.
Continue to write and improve.
Do not give up.
Mr Brandon Tennakoon
Since the article is mainly about cloning and whether it is ethically correct to use animals in various tests when it is deemed ethically unacceptable for humans to be used as test subjects, i will be touching on this subject.
ReplyDeleteThe issues surrounding ethics in science or medicine usually revolve around whether consent has been given, how invasive the procedure is and how much suffering the test subject is put under. These have been the reasons why humans have been exempted from scientific and medical research in its early stages and yet we have no qualms subjecting other animals for testing when they too meet the criteria to be exempted.
Human beings are speciescist, ever ready to exploit any animal and anything, including each other for their own personal gain. It all bores down to the nature of human beings. In the animal kingdom, you will never come across different breeds of a particular animal going to war for weeks or even years at a time with the intention of bringing as much pain, suffering and destruction to each other over a clash of ideologies. You will also never come across a predator species capturing its prey and then farming it in squalid conditions instead of simply feeding on it, animals don't kill unnecessarily and on a large scale. They hunt for what they need to survive, never would they even come close to wiping out an entire species of animal. Apart from parasitic insects, the thought of using another species of animal to fulfill their needs would never cross an animals mind.
it is not a matter of education, animals do not go to school, they are born with the natural instinct to live in harmony with their environment, something humans were born with too but act in an opposite manner because they have been conditioned by society for decades to put themselves ahead of anything else. Humans have been conditioned to regard all other animals as inferior and put on earth at our disposal to be used in whatever way we want, failing to respect the fact that humans are animals too and not some superior being with the right to do whatever they want with natures creations, flora and fauna alike.
If humans can conclude that it is not ethical to subject another to invasive testing on their body, all they need to do is to widen their mind and not be ignorant to the fact that all animals feel pain and stress especially when they show it physically. We need to stop and put ourselves in the position of animals we have domesticated, farmed and selected for medical and scientific research and we will see simply that similar to human beings, our main goal as animals is to be free, to survive and carry on our gene line through reproduction. Would a human like being caged up and left at the will of someone else to be poked, prodded, tested on or slaughtered? To have a vivisection performed on them? And all at their expense, not for the better of their own species but for the good of another? The answer is no. If humans can find reason to exempt themselves from suffering under such procedures then we should do the same for all other life forms. Instead of exploiting all life forms for our own gains, 'as a superior species' of animal with apparent high intelligence, we should have seen the signs a long time ago telling us that nature cant cope with our unnecessary lifestyles and it's only a matter of time before this unbalanced and selfish way of life will come crashing down, dragging along all other forms of life with it.
Dear Jude,
DeleteI like the effort you have put in to illustrate and expend on the issue that humans have no right to inflict pain on animals when they know that it also causes humans such harm.
Citing where you got your sources can further improve your comments and give it more credibility.
It is true that humans have often taught of themselves to be more superior that other animals, and thus, have a right to ill-treat animals.
Keep up the good work.
Mr Brandon Tennakoon