# Things that man was not meant to know



## chrispenycate (Nov 21, 2005)

All knowledge can be used for good or bad, and it isn’t always immediately clear which is which. What is more, with original research, there is no way of knowing in advance what the results will be- otherwise it wouldn’t be research but demonstration (for me, those who devise experiments to prove that what they already knew was right all along rather than to highlight any faults in their theory are not scientists but philosophers. Experimental disproof is at the heart of scientific methodology) It is now generally accepted that some lines of research should be avoided- what can’t be agreed upon is which.lines of research should be pusued, and who shoul do the deciding. At the present moment it’s the biological sciences that are in the spotlight, but this could change- but biologicals are the easiest to slip through the net (in a hospital lab, or even at home- you don’t need atom smashers or massive power sources- and even financing is a fraction of say high energy physics) so if an individual gets results in fields the world has classed too dangerous, we’re in schtuk. Some possible candidates.  

Democratic 1 oliticians- elected by the people from the people, and thus theoretically reflecting the opinion of the people. They were, however elected for other reasons that their comprehension of scientific matters 

Democratic 2 whenever a question arises it is put to a popular referendum, and anyone who has  any interest can vote on it . This system, which works in Switzerland now, because it’s such a tiny country, could be extented electronicly to cover larger groups of people- but getting the actual information to them might be more complicated. I suspect that the result would be a tiny minority bothering to vote, and falling fairly neatly into two groups- those who are anti any change and those who embrace all change. This is not the optimum solution to judging the relative merits of different projects.

Plutocratic- Big business and corporations- by controlling the funding for commercial projects they already have the basis for the control mechanism, and a slighly longer term view than the average politician. All that is needed is to install the equation  « Extinction of mankind = reduced profits » to have a powerful stimulus for success- though, almost by definition, they’re bribable.

Theocratic The church (temple, whatever) is the traditional judge of morality. It is certain that whatever moral question crops up they will have an opinion- and even if they don’t have the first idea of the science involved they might have a longer term view of the situation than someone who only has to think four years ahead to the next election.

Aristocratic- sounds silly but they do have the long view, and in a number of societies the final decision. As a group, they’re probably no more afraid of change than any other, and tend to have a very wide, if not deep, education.

Meritocratic :- choose your candidatesin early childhood for scientific talent (but not genius) and incorruptibility. Instill in them an almost religious fervour for understanding and balancing the advantages and disadvantages, both social and environmental, of any line of research. Minimal specialisation (since any original findings can spill over into other disciplines, and build small, dedicated international teams giving the widest spread of talents, nationalities, sexes, religions, ages, species- no perhaps that’s going too far. I hate to imagine the enforcement body associated with this organisation- they’d automatically rule against anything with military aplications while national governments would be desparately trying to get an advantage : 

Stastisticocratic :- give the job to assurance assessors who’re used to calculating benefits against risks.

Military :- I personally think the world would be insane to put that power into the hands of the military- but perhaps they’d take it without asking first. At least they’d have the means of enforcing their decisions.

Beaurocratic :- Despite the knee jerk negative reaction from all thinking beings, beaurocratic control is probably optimal if what you want to do is slow everything down (a reasonable aim) However, this is a permanent brake- the only way to get rid of beaurocrats is to shoot them, incinerate the remains and fire the ashes into the sun- and even then I wouldn’t be too sure. Which means that, if we learnt that an asteroid was going to hit the Earth in ten years time, you could guarantee that the subcomittee for celestial impacts would take eleven years to be chosen, argued over, their political, sexual and financial discrepancies discussed- and the last year would be in a satelite containing the remains of humanity- all beaurocrats.

Egocentricratic The scientists themselves presumably understand what their experiment entails, but not always its significance on the wider stage

Academocratic- In the « publish or perish » world of higher learning peer pressure can direct the researcher to socially desired fields, and it is assumed that those peers understand the vocabulary and the aims of the project (it will be assumed here that older, established scientists never get petty and block research that could overcome their pet theories, Of course, all scientists are models of probity who desire nothing save that truth prevail)

Comitocratic :- the most insidiously attractive and dangerous solution- don’t decide, choose everything. Put three or four religious authorities (from different religions evidently), some out of work scientists, administrators, representatives of international corporations. A few military leaders, politicians who failed to get voted into other posts, allow them to call experts as required


----------



## asdar (Nov 22, 2005)

Given those choices I guess I'd have to go with politicians. 

It goes against everything that I am to say it, but I'd rather have someone that's at least removable from office and that has checks and balances holding them from going too far making those decisions.

I hope nobody takes that the wrong way. I do not support my current administration and think they're going the wrong way on everything moral but at least they're elected officials.

Any other method, to my thinking, is just asking for trouble. I won't go down the list saying why I think they're all bad, except for the 2nd choice on my personaly list, which is a group of scientists.

The reason I think that scientists wouldn't be a good candidate is because I've been around scientists and they tend to get very focused on the goal. That's a good thing for science but not so good at visualizing the big picture. I can imagine a scientist using the theory that an embryo isn't really a person so it's fine to do anything you want to it, and even create plentiful embryo just for experimentation.

I'm not saying I disagree or agree with that opinion but I think it's important to at least consider the view of other people that find that morally wrong.

I think that beaurocratic systems are important. I think that policy should be in place where certain areas of exploration require permits to undertake. I wouldn't want someone to experiment with Nuclear, biological, chemical material in my neighborhood without some kind of safety precautions. I wouldn't want scientists experimenting with human genetics without some kind of guidelines.


----------



## chrispenycate (Nov 23, 2005)

Thank you- and you'll notice I didn't write any of them up in glowing colours since all choices seemed flawed. Still, if you've got a better idea, please tell- i don't claim omniscience. After preparing all that I discover I'd forgotten - the press (and television journalism) and control by pillory, which has proved pretty feeble internationally, but quite effective locally.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Nov 23, 2005)

I'm still thinking about all this, Chris.  But I have identified a few that I certainly wouldn't want to give the control over science to.

Definitely not the business world.  They haven't got that long a view; most of them haven't yet figured out that polluting the planet is not a good business strategy, no matter how much cash it saves them in the short run.

And definitely not religion.  I don't want anyone with a religious axe to grind anywhere near decision making around science.  Maybe I've studied the fundies (of all religious persuasions) too much to trust any kind of religion.  I don't even trust the more moderate groups to remain objective.

And, for goodness sake, keep the statisticians away.  Because, you know, there are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics.

I don't think I like the aristocratic alternative, either.  All the history I know tells me that the aristocrats have an excessively class-based outlook (no surprise) and would jigger things around to benefit their own over others.

And I would not trust the military, just based on their penchant for secrecy.  Not to mention the fact that they would likely pursue work with military applications at the expense of other work.

I don't think I would want academia to be in charge either.  Having hung around that bunch more than any sane person should, I know how political and dogmatic academics can be.  In fact, they're almost worse than the religionists when it comes to dogmatism.  And they squabble incessantly.  I know, I was warned not to apply to Berkeley when I was looking at schools to do my upper division work in anthropology on the basis that the department was fighting among themselves at the time.

Who does that leave?  The two democratic alternatives, meritocracy, bureaucracy, and a combination of all of the above.  I'll have to think about those a little bit more before I figure out how I feel about this.

Thanks for the mental workout, Chris.


----------



## Timeros (Nov 30, 2005)

I believe the answer should be (with a few exceptions): _no one._ There should be nothing prohibiting scientific research except for laws already in place concerning safety and morals (such as not kidnapping children to experiment upon, to name one ridiculous example).

If a decision about this should be made, I would prefer to let it go to other scientists. Scientists, despite Hollywood cliché, are neither immoral, nor stupid, nor irresponsible. They are not going to give the go-ahead to something that might, say, blow up the state of california if it goes wrong.

The three organizations least fit too handle this would be the military, the church(es), and the people.

The Military because it will overspecialize in military developments, and it is likely to use such weapons once developed, if pressed too hard. 

Under no circumstance should science and religion EVER be united. Religion and the scientific method are polar opposites, and I do not trust any religious leader to posess the moral integrity to not 'fake' research, or put it into the hands of his/her followers to convert others.

The people: Frankly, most people are too dumb to understand the scientific method. To allow them to choose research, when they don't understand the meaning of the word would be disastrous.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Dec 1, 2005)

Timeros said:
			
		

> The people: Frankly, most people are too dumb to understand the scientific method. To allow them to choose research, when they don't understand the meaning of the word would be disastrous.


 
I firmly believe that most people are quite intelligent enough to grasp the scientific method.  The real problem is, science education on the basic level and science reporting in the media are both so dumbed down, at least here in the States, that people don't have the foundation they need to make the decisions that would need to be made.  Also, there is the mistake, also I think largely the media's fault, that scientific principles can be decided by public opinion poll.  As an example, people will argue with a straight face that creationism should be taught in the schools because in some polls in the US, a majority or near-majority of people say they believe in that.  But beliving doesn't make it so.  So, in order for the people to make such decisions, major changes in education and information exchange would need to be made if the people were to make scientific decisions.


----------



## dreamwalker (Dec 1, 2005)

A Comitocratic specialised international body of people, some elected, others chosen on the merit of there experiance in relevant feilds. Well it sounds good in principal but buroracy drastically lowers the effectiveness of any such organisation over the short to medium term.
My alternative would have to be the military. Although devisive in terms of any international models, things are enforced, there is very little burocarcy, and money is thrown at projects that are deemed "in the interests of national security" - a perogative with very little ambiguity (unlike the others) which would be a start. But due to the short term views of the military much research into very important fields would be negelcted (although not necessary discouraged)

I think there is one specialied body already in formation to preside over the creation of the supposed international eugenics law's to govern stem cell research in places where national law's are unable to apply (eg, antartica).

For the time being, it rests in the hands of our national politicians, which in prinicple is the fair and obvious way - in practise, well.

What do you guys think of other specialised international bodies already in place.  eg.
The Kyoto Treaty
the United Nations


----------



## Timeros (Dec 1, 2005)

littlemissattitude said:
			
		

> I firmly believe that most people are quite intelligent enough to grasp the scientific method. The real problem is, science education on the basic level and science reporting in the media are both so dumbed down, at least here in the States, that people don't have the foundation they need to make the decisions that would need to be made. Also, there is the mistake, also I think largely the media's fault, that scientific principles can be decided by public opinion poll. As an example, people will argue with a straight face that creationism should be taught in the schools because in some polls in the US, a majority or near-majority of people say they believe in that. But beliving doesn't make it so. So, in order for the people to make such decisions, major changes in education and information exchange would need to be made if the people were to make scientific decisions.


 
Although creationism is a problem almost exclusive among the U.S, other crimes against scientists ARE routinely comitted even by the highly intelligent. 
Among those major changes would probably be the list of logical fallacies, mainly stuff such as the 'strawman' , 'appeal to authority' , and 'appeal to popularity' arguments all too prevalent in the Creation/evolution debate.

Just placing a large stamp with 'Science is not a democracy' on all science tekstbooks should be sufficient to make people start to think a bit more 

IIRC, the majority of Christians (who are, in turn, the majority of people) in the U.S thinks that 'intelligent design' is what they believe in, though that might just be, for example, the result of a mistaken definition (it is, for one, quite possible to believe in Evolution but not Abiogenesis).

As for international treaties: Without straying from the subject too much: No, I don't think they can work unless they have some actual POWER, something the U.N evidently lacks.


----------



## Timeros (Dec 1, 2005)

Oh, and military could work if it's something like that military thingie (think it was called DARPA) that basically funds everything (including research on penguins) on the off chance you can make a weapon out of it (like a penguin bomb or something)


----------



## Rosemary (Dec 1, 2005)

I certainly would not want the Military or the Politicians to have control, neither the Church.

I was thinking of the Scientists but then as has been reported over the years, even Scientists have their price!  How many have taken their new 'scientific discoveries' to another country?  This certainly occured during WWII...


----------



## Hellsheep (Jan 5, 2006)

What an interesting question..
But I would say that "moral acceptability" is quite a elusive thing, can you define it? I don't think so. If I was to decide, there would be no limit on what to research and what not. Well, conducting experiments on selfconscious human beings (lets say from the moment they're born) shouldn't be alowed, but why should someone impose any other restrictions?
To answer your poll, chrispenycate, I would say "other". Just because the rest doesn't suit me. Politicians screw up enough things as it is. Other scientist just seems strange to me (don't ask me why). International bodies don't work (because the US do what they want anyway). And leting so important a decision be made by religious organisations is even worse. I would rather let the military decide. Better to have new weapons (which might be later utilized as civil stuff) than to live in a world without scietifical progress (if the religious guys made the decisions). So I would say, that everyone should pursue whatever science he likes, as long as he follows the rules (about harmful experiments and such)


----------



## chrispenycate (Jan 6, 2006)

Hellsheep said:
			
		

> What an interesting question..
> But I would say that "moral acceptability" is quite a elusive thing, can you define it? I don't think so. If I was to decide, there would be no limit on what to research and what not. Well, conducting experiments on selfconscious human beings (lets say from the moment they're born) shouldn't be alowed, but why should someone impose any other restrictions?
> To answer your poll, chrispenycate, I would say "other". Just because the rest doesn't suit me. Politicians screw up enough things as it is. Other scientist just seems strange to me (don't ask me why). International bodies don't work (because the US do what they want anyway). And leting so important a decision be made by religious organisations is even worse. I would rather let the military decide. Better to have new weapons (which might be later utilized as civil stuff) than to live in a world without scietifical progress (if the religious guys made the decisions). So I would say, that everyone should pursue whatever science he likes, as long as he follows the rules (about harmful experiments and such)


I chose "moral" over "ethical" quite carefully- but even if the term is difficult to tie down, it is evident you understood it, since you have defined your limits clearly - no experimentation on self aware human beings ("self concious" is used for something else in english, but that's just the pedant talking, it was absolutely comprehensible) but open season on foetuses, human genome experiments, cloning and, of course, any experiments on "lower" animals from chimps on down. Of course microorganisms and plants are fair game on anybodies list, despite the potential disasters, since it has been decided that the potential benefits outweigh the risks.
And, even if the biosciences find themselves at the focus of the ethical microscope for the instant, other branches aren't immune. Before the first hydrogen bomb test (at Bikini) there were scientists who believed there was a slight risk that it might start a chain reaction in the earth's oceans. Even the most pessimistic didn't consider the risk worse than about one in a thousand, but considered that a risk of point one percent of planetary meltdown and human extinction (not to mention the elimination of all other life on earth) was not worth the knowledge gained, but they were ignored, and fortunately it turns out that it would require several orders of magnitude more energy to cause any fusion at all let alone runaway fusion in the sea, and we're all still alive- but if ever the situation arises again, I'd like there to be more than the guy who really wants to know the results deciding.
It has to be international in scope, because the organisations are multinational - if each country has its own independant  regulating body, with its own set of laws, sooner or later the research will be done in a country whose science minister was ready to stretch the definitions a little for some financial considerations, whether personal or for the country.
But "the rules" is what this is all about - not the rules themselves, but who decides what they are in the first place. You've got a clear idea about what they should be, and what is a "harmful experiment" - others in this forum (maybe even me, but that's not important) might have quite different ideas. I've watched the various UN bodies take on this type of problem and the answers were far from conclusive; I was hoping someone would say "don't be silly, it's obvious", but no one has. In the mean time, the damoclean problem hangs over humanity along with all the other "insolvables" that we're too cowardly or small minded to face up to.
Oh, dear, I'm preaching - I'd hate it if someone did that to me, so I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Cyril (Jan 9, 2006)

I think any research available should be performed because the only way to control it is to know it. If we don't seek to increase our knowledge of a new scientific field, some other will. And when they'll make a breach with a new technology associated, they'll control its effect and all the others who neglected it will be subjected to the firts ones wills.

But I also agree with the nececity  of a regulating organization which judge who's going too far and who's not. I think this organization should consist of a sample group of the society : scholars, politicians, media, consumers, intellectuals... I didn't include religion because for me it belongs to the personal field and it's represented in this gathering by the faith or atheism of all its members.


----------



## cornelius (Jan 9, 2006)

Is there an answer to this question? One that doesn't contain risks?

"the kindness of people"or " morale"  isn't in order here, we all know what money and geniuses can do together.  I think military research costs way too much. who cares for an " invisible aircraft" ? it's better to put that money in a fund to help the victims, and to put that money in research to undo the damage and all those bombs have done , to get rid off al those mines, to get rid of all those nukes, to find a way to do away with all that nuclear waist. But who'd be in control of that? 

politicians? are there politicians who are capable of dealing with such a high responsibility? Look at Bush ( I don't call him a politician though, I won't tell you how I call him instead) he is sponsored by weaponproducing factories... How laim is that?

Who'd be capable of leading worldwide science and research?

It seems that the world is to crowded to get any real global democracy. Worldwide elections wouldn't solve it. who'd control the voting to see if there aren't any mistakes or frauds? it's a circle with no end...


----------



## dwndrgn (Jan 9, 2006)

I apologize.  My reply was sucked into the vacuum of webspace while I was in the midst of creating it...so you have likely seen my post and scratched your heads, wondering what in the heck I meant by it.  Actually, I meant a lot of things but all that was _Lost In Space_.  I cannot recreate it at the moment as I'm at work and a bit busy, but I thought I should at least get rid of the confusion.

Please go back to your erudite discussion and ignore that blonde woman behind the curtain...


----------



## HieroGlyph (Jan 9, 2006)

BBC Radio 4 "The Science Blacklist" Justin Webb on a rather frightening trail...
Frightens me, anyway.

I think that science should be openly and freely discussed among its peers (which is the whole POINT of science) and a lot more listening should be done by politicians, worldwide. No agendas.

I say among other scientists. They are, ultimately, the ones that _know_ what theyre talking about. Thats a can of worms, since ignorance of its own breeds fear...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/scienceblacklist.shtml


----------



## HieroGlyph (Jan 9, 2006)

My agenda!?! Well, mine is for us *not* to mix up politics, Faith and science...

Hope some of you might catch C4 tonight, 8pm...


----------



## Quokka (Apr 10, 2006)

How do you tell them apart? The Military looks like big business until you compare it to religion.

and as for a statistical approach I've always liked the old quote: 

_"Many people use statistics like a drunk uses a lamp post - more for support, than illumination."_


----------



## mosaix (Jul 23, 2006)

I think it has to be by a democratically elected body. That way if we get it wrong we can vote, change the politicians and therebye change the decision. 

The others all seem to be a one-way street.

So for me it's the politicians.


----------

