the morality of science

[happythoughts 0]

A little good science (possibly) fiction this evening.

Science has exceeded the ability of people to deal with its consequences. It has always been that way to an extent. However, nature is not really fair or kind either.

The ability of the largest Lion to have an entire group of females in his harem creates an unhappy situation for the other suitors. For people, something similar probably existed.

Then, somebody discovered the other valuable uses of rocks and the arms race ensued. Swords may rocks less valuable.

Most of the obvious moral qualms were related to the development and use of arms. Right and wrong were pretty subjective, with the winners writing the history books.

clicky

Now, we have a different dilemma. This guy wants to use pigs to "grow" organs for transplants to people. Hardly different than just growing them for dinner, but it opens a door.

One by-product of pollution has been a growth in the number of anencaphallic babies. (No actual brain)
What if the next step is growing genetic clones of people for harvesting?

A person with a bad heart, knees, and liver could request those parts be "grown" from a clone of their very own cells.

If you are dieing, it may give you a different perspective. All beings endeavor to exist. I'm just not comfortable with this idea though.

[quade 4]

It's late and I don't have a lot of time, but I did want to say this;

Science is neither moral nor immoral.

Morality is a human construction and a highly malleable one at that. Consider a LOT of what we take for granted today as common everyday medical procedures and if you look back through history, when they were first proposed you'll see that the "morality" of the procedure was probably debated as "playing God". In particular, look at human heart transplants.

Now, if you want to make GREAT science fiction, you take a scientific principle and extrapolate it to an extreme, but still logical conclusion. Yep, GREAT science fiction, but it's NOT the basis to decide whether or not to perform a medical procedure or study.

Just because a scientist CAN grow human clones, for harvestable body parts, doesn't mean it IS or IS NOT moral from any point of view. It's the POINT OF VIEW that is moral or immoral; not the science.

So, what is more moral; growing a replacement part for a living thinking individual by whatever means, or having that knowledge, but allowing suffering of people to continue?

My personal view is that if you can alleviate suffering, then the ONLY moral decision possible it to act on that and stop the suffering.

Your views may differ, but it will take quite a bit for you to convince me otherwise.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,072]

>What if the next step is growing genetic clones of people for harvesting?

Or - what if the next step is using that same technology to grow, say, a new heart for a patient? We already use pieces of a patient's body (fascia, peripheral nerves, arteries etc) to repair other parts. Taking a piece of cardiac muscle (or a pluripotent cell from somewhere else in your body) treating it so it grows into a replacement organ and reinstalling it isn't much different from a morality point of view.

>A person with a bad heart, knees, and liver could request those parts
>be "grown" from a clone of their very own cells.

Yep. Indeed, an argument could be made that it is more moral to use your own liver cells to replace your liver than to use someone else's liver.

[happythoughts 0]

I was examining it from the viewpoint of a whole person.
Not growing just the liver. Growing another entire person for spare parts, even if it is a copy of you.

In China, there was some discussion about how they were harvesting organs from executed prisoners. The concern was that people would get a little too interested in doing executions.

You get into some interesting questions of "soul".
Does the spare-parts you have a soul without anything at the top of the brain stem? It has life.

[billvon 3,072]

>Does the spare-parts you have a soul without anything at the top of the brain stem? It has life.

So does a liver. It (like a body with no nervous system) simply does not have independent life.

Now, if you're talking about growing a true clone to maturity, then killing it and using the organs, then you have a valid moral issue to deal with - because that has the potential (and much of the actuality) for human life. But a body without a mind is an organ donor, just as someone who has been decapitated in an accident is. It doesn't matter that the body looks human. Without a mind, there is no person.

So to me it doesn't matter if you clone blood cells and use the blood, or clone a liver and use it, or clone a whole body from the shoulders down and use _it._ All of them are similar morally - as long as there is no human mind involved.

[happythoughts 0]

I agree. Science, itself, is neither moral or immoral.
It is what you use it for. A tool.

Nuclear power or nuclear weapons.
A surgeons knife to heal or a murderers to kill.

This is not an easy topic in this case.
The whole issue of life is probably the most discussed on every level of literature, law, and morality.

All the tools to create and extend it. How will we define it?

[happythoughts 0]

All good points.

To me, the mind is the delineation point.
I got into this discussion with a nurse several years ago after pollution caused birth defects to skyrocket in Matemoros. (chemical dumping in the Rio Grande)

I was in a meeting discussing legislation for medical benefits with our state rep. All the "when do we pull the plug" questions.

This new item brought that all up.

[pug 0]

Quote

I was examining it from the viewpoint of a whole person.
Not growing just the liver. Growing another entire person for spare parts, even if it is a copy of you.

The question is – why should you?

It is a damn inefficient way of doing things. If you need a liver, grow a liver. Growing an entire clone is one hell of a waste of energy and resources, seeing that there is really only one person that can truly use the corresponding organs. How many times does it happen that someone needs a "full organ set replacement"?

I am not saying that I would not abhor the idea of using clones as spare part donors. I'm just not too worried about it, as all other methods are more efficient, and I therefore assume that there is no reason to even try to move in that direction.

Using pigs as organ donors is a debate that has been going on a long time. There are multiple issues associated with the idea, not among the least being diseases crossing the species barrier after xenotransplantation. Another interesting titbit is that the pigs used for this type of research tend to be genetically modified to make the organs more compatible by introducing human genes.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

seeing that there is really only one person that can truly use the corresponding organs

How do you figure? Medically, the organs could be used for people other than the person being cloned, just like live or cadaver transplants currently are.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

You get into some interesting questions of "soul".
Does the spare-parts you have a soul without anything at the top of the brain stem? It has life.

Ok, questions like this make me quite grumpy. Why should moral problems ever involve the concept of 'soul' - what is basically a metaphysical religious construct that (forgive me for being blunt) simply does not exist.

Consciousness should be the measure of what makes a person - not soul.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Quote

seeing that there is really only one person that can truly use the corresponding organs

How do you figure? Medically, the organs could be used for people other than the person being cloned, just like live or cadaver transplants currently are.

Currently transplant patients who receive cadaveric organs or even from non-identical siblings are committing to a lifetime of anti-rejection drug therapy which suppresses their immune system and leaves them open to secondary disease.

The same would be true of organs taken from someone else's clone – ie there would be absolutely no benefit to using expensively grown cloned organs over those which could simply be whipped out of the nearest motorcyclist for a fraction of the cost.

Your own cloned organs on the other hand would slot straight in without, by comparison, your body even noticing and without the need for decades of expensive and debilitating drug therapy.

The two concepts are worlds apart when it comes to patient wellbeing.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>or clone a whole body from the shoulders down and use _it._ .

after watching the movie The Island - I'd like a clone of Scarlett Johanson delivered. I believe the original may have a human mind involved, but not necessarily acting lessons.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Stumpy 284]

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[Squeak 17]

Quote

Quote

Consciousness should be the measure of what makes a person - not soul.

Define Consciousness, just becuase someone is not Conscious does not mean that they dont have their own quality of life or they dont qualify as a person

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

• Quote

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

Quote

Consciousness should be the measure of what makes a person - not soul.

Define Consciousness, just because someone is not Conscious does not mean that they dont have their own quality of life or they dont qualify as a person

Heh, thought someone might call me on that. One thing's for sure though, consciousness is a hell of a lot easier to define than soul (because it actually exists).

If someone does not have a brain capable of producing higher thought then they are not a person. Someone who is brain dead, someone who is in a coma where only their brain stem is working, a bunch of cells that are not yet grown into something that can think, these are not people - they are biological functions.

I hadn't intended that to sound so harsh, but there it is.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mr2mk1g 10]

By the way, this has hit the news today as UK scientists have announced they have managed to grow a liver from stem cells.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_headline=stem-cell-scientists-grow-liver-&method=full&objectid=18017525&siteid=66633-name_page.html

[billvon 3,072]

>Define Consciousness

A GCS score of 9 or higher. (Specifically a score equal to or greater than E3V2M4.)

>just becuase someone is not Conscious does not mean that
>they dont have their own quality of life . . .

Someone who has a GCS of 3 not only has no quality of life, they have nothing we'd really identify as life. Whatever was human about them is gone.

>or they dont qualify as a person

Someone who is brain-dead (or who is missing their head or brain due to trauma) does not qualify as a person.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

By the way, this has hit the news today as UK scientists have announced they have managed to grow a liver from stem cells.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_headline=stem-cell-scientists-grow-liver-&method=full&objectid=18017525&siteid=66633-name_page.html

Mary Wollstonecraft Shelly was a Brit, so it's only appropriate that it happened in the UK. Now, where's Igor?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[nathaniel 0]

The Luddites couldn't get along with the rest of society, the Amish seem to get along just fine. You can find various religious sects these days that eschew science.

It seems empirically possible to eschew science for morals, but it poses a huge cognitive challenge for most people to come to terms with it. Such that most people don't run off and form Amish communities or become monks.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[Red_Skydiver 0]

Quote

It's late and I don't have a lot of time, but I did want to say this;

Science is neither moral nor immoral.

Morality is a human construction and a highly malleable one at that. Consider a LOT of what we take for granted today as common everyday medical procedures and if you look back through history, when they were first proposed you'll see that the "morality" of the procedure was probably debated as "playing God". In particular, look at human heart transplants.

Now, if you want to make GREAT science fiction, you take a scientific principle and extrapolate it to an extreme, but still logical conclusion. Yep, GREAT science fiction, but it's NOT the basis to decide whether or not to perform a medical procedure or study.

Just because a scientist CAN grow human clones, for harvestable body parts, doesn't mean it IS or IS NOT moral from any point of view. It's the POINT OF VIEW that is moral or immoral; not the science.

So, what is more moral; growing a replacement part for a living thinking individual by whatever means, or having that knowledge, but allowing suffering of people to continue?

My personal view is that if you can alleviate suffering, then the ONLY moral decision possible it to act on that and stop the suffering.

Your views may differ, but it will take quite a bit for you to convince me otherwise.

Great answer! Couldn't have put it better myself. Science is outside morality it's how you use it that may be judged immoral. Plastic surgery is a good example as sometimes it's done for vanity (immoral?) and other times for medical reasons (morally correct?).

Having said that I do disagree with you slightly. I have recently started to think that advancement in science may not be such a great idea for the survival of mankind.

What happens when we start saving more people? The world cannot sustain the 6 billion people we already have adequately. Media reports suggest we are heading towards hard times with climate change (possibly a result of too much human activity) and fish stocks in decline. We can work miracles (so to speak) in medicine now. In the developed world women rarely die in childbirth, children grow into healthy adults, we can replace our knees, hips, hearts and lungs and people are living longer. It's great that we can stop the suffering no question about that but what about natural selection and survival of the fittest? People with ailments, deformaties and imperfections can now have surgery to correct whatever it is that by rights should have killed them off long ago.

Basically is science meddling with nature too much? Are we helping the wrong people survive? If we suddenly decided to save the lives of all those at risk in Africa how the hell do we feed them when there often isn't enough for them now? Science can provide some answers to that problem no doubt however we will consume all of the earths resources one day soon too. We cannot sustain the way of life that we have grown accustomed to in the first world if we want science to save more peoples lives and stop people suffering.....can we? Losing a few billion through climate change might not be a bad thing after all.

[Red_Skydiver 0]

I saw an advert for a TV programme over here in the UK recently which stated that many transplant organ recipients have taken onboard the personality of their donors. Sounds weird. I didn't see the documentary unfortunately, just the ad for it. Did anyone watch the programme?

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

I saw an advert for a TV programme over here in the UK recently which stated that many transplant organ recipients have taken onboard the personality of their donors. Sounds weird. I didn't see the documentary unfortunately, just the ad for it. Did anyone watch the programme?

Ever see the '60s horror movie "The Hands of Orlac"?

A guy loses his hands in a train wreck, and has the hands of an executed murderer (Orlac) transplanted. The hands, of course, have a mind of their own....

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.