In Heather E. Douglas’s essay “The Dark Side of Science”, she mentioned that scientists should be responsible for their discoveries that are used to the awful advantages that they could be used for. Scientist who makes these discoveries may know what they can endure. Scientist usually knows how there discovers will end up, but mostly they do not think of the reproductions that could happen if they ended up being used for the wrong intended purposes for that particular discovery. Douglas writes how it should be one sided and scientist should be held accountable for their actions, maybe they need to look at the bigger picture before they decide to point fingers at who should be responsible for what. Douglas had some good points, but
…show more content…
The world will always have the mentally unbalanced, the delusional, the vicious, and the sociopathic members of society, some of whom will also be intelligent enough to use the results of science” (126) had more to say about the negative than the positive parts of science, she mentions that the DNA sequence that it is intended for the medical practice can also when placed in the wrong hands be the stepping stone for building pathogens from scratch. Which in many ways all together might not be the intentions from the start, scientists need to account for such possibilities when such high precision information is released to the public. Especially in the case that intended to use weapons that meant to cause harm. This type of research is usually backed up by government, the researchers are not clear of personal responsibility. Directly involving themselves in the development and being fully aware of the intended applications leaves the researcher morally obligated to take responsibility for the repercussions. Douglas states that there should be stricter regulations to assist in the development in research to a more stable controlled path to help direct these …show more content…
Science will always be around and the curiosity will always kill the cat so to speak, technology will always change along with all sorts of scientific discoveries.
As douglas states, “Einstein was not responsible for the use of his E=mc2 equation to build an atomic bomb and its use in wartime, though the scientists at Los Alamos were” (125). When someone behind the wheel of a car and then causes an accident do we blame the car manufacturer or the person? We blame the person for being irresponsible and driving while intoxicated. So why should a researcher be responsible for the things that could not be avoided when certain things can get in the wrong hand.
Einstein might have came up with the equation but I highly doubt he knew what the negative outcomes could all be when he made his discovery. This passage, unreasonably shares blame creation and or operation of atomic weapons. This text also seems to highlight the more dangerous outcomes of research, the idea of creating stricter regulations is just going to hurt the public as a whole. Restricting this type of information can limit the public to learn what is new coming out. The thought of trying to restrict information seems like the government does not want anyone knowing what is going on in the
The world will always have the mentally unbalanced, the delusional, the vicious, and the sociopathic members of society, some of whom will also be intelligent enough to use the results of science” (126) had more to say about the negative than the positive parts of science, she mentions that the DNA sequence that it is intended for the medical practice can also when placed in the wrong hands be the stepping stone for building pathogens from scratch. Which in many ways all together might not be the intentions from the start, scientists need to account for such possibilities when such high precision information is released to the public. Especially in the case that intended to use weapons that meant to cause harm. This type of research is usually backed up by government, the researchers are not clear of personal responsibility. Directly involving themselves in the development and being fully aware of the intended applications leaves the researcher morally obligated to take responsibility for the repercussions. Douglas states that there should be stricter regulations to assist in the development in research to a more stable controlled path to help direct these …show more content…
Science will always be around and the curiosity will always kill the cat so to speak, technology will always change along with all sorts of scientific discoveries.
As douglas states, “Einstein was not responsible for the use of his E=mc2 equation to build an atomic bomb and its use in wartime, though the scientists at Los Alamos were” (125). When someone behind the wheel of a car and then causes an accident do we blame the car manufacturer or the person? We blame the person for being irresponsible and driving while intoxicated. So why should a researcher be responsible for the things that could not be avoided when certain things can get in the wrong hand.
Einstein might have came up with the equation but I highly doubt he knew what the negative outcomes could all be when he made his discovery. This passage, unreasonably shares blame creation and or operation of atomic weapons. This text also seems to highlight the more dangerous outcomes of research, the idea of creating stricter regulations is just going to hurt the public as a whole. Restricting this type of information can limit the public to learn what is new coming out. The thought of trying to restrict information seems like the government does not want anyone knowing what is going on in the