The value of science :-Applied Ethics

Does the fact that we can do something always mean that we should do it? This is not
only an insightful question, but also lands right in the middle of a very hazy topic; Morals
and Ethics. Morals and ethics are two huge concepts that engulf many other issues. In this
paper, we will be discussing morals and ethics as they may relate to science, particularly
cloning. Before we delve into this question, let us first get a grasp on what exactly morals
and ethics are.
Morals, as defined by Nina Rosenstand, author of The Moral of the Story, usually refer to
the moral rules that we follow and the values that we have. Each of us, from birth have
been almost encoded with a set of rules, usually from our parent figures or church, that
we are taught to live and apply correctly in our daily adventures of life.
Ethics, as defined by Rosenstand, is generally thought of as the theories about these
moral rules. Ethics questions and justifies the moral rules that we live by. If ethics can
find no justification for a particular set of rules, it may ask us to abandon them.

This then begs the question, what moral and ethical codes do we live by? Many of us
were taught at a young age the golden rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do
unto you". This is a very solid rule that we all seem to get away from, time to time.
Many of us were told fables and wives tales, or ethical narratives as we now call them,
that taught us how to live and interact with others. But where do we learn the rules that
these fables didn't teach us, like, when is it appropriate to alter nature? Who decides what
is right and correct there? Is there any common ground on issues like resurrecting extinct
animals, cloning, or the human genome project?

This brings us the field of applied ethics. Applied ethics, as defined by Rosenstand is the
area in ethics that deals with how one should react in specific situations, and especially
with how our social policies ought to be formed to ensure the most balanced ethical
standards. Rosenstand sites that we are entering a time where there is little supervision or
established ethical mores involved in the scientific advances taking place in labs the
world over. Religious activists, philosophers and ethicists, not to mention the courts, legal
system and scientists are all stumbling to make some sense out of this revelation in
science. And still we ask, because we can, should we? (Probably by the time we get
around to answering that question, we will be in full swing and cloning left and right.)

Our society, as in all others, lives by a moral code. This is code allows us to function
together at peace (usually), as an aggregate. Arguably, most societies have a shared
interest in co-habitation and decent social behavior. Not only does it promote a sort of
kindness to others, but also allows you to leave the house without the fear of being
needlessly killed by a neighbor. This is generally thought of as a good thing. We all need
to abide by these rules in order to get along and move ahead as a society in a cohesive
manner.

Morality has been described as doing the right thing even when no one else is around.
Using the moral code as a guideline, can we get a society to agree that reviving an extinct
species of animal is the right thing to do?
 How about getting more than just one society to agree to this. Is it feasible to presume
that we could convince an aborigine tribe in Uganda that reviving the Wolly Mammoth is
something that we need to do, just because we have the ability? Not to mention that we
were missing some of the DNA to complete the Wolly Mammoth, so we borrowed some
DNA from a domestic long hair cat to complete the process. Let us not attempt to confuse
the aborigine tribe by trying to explain that our new Wolly is not exactly like the old
one"¦.. It's better! New and Improved features that cuts roaming 20%, charging predators
17%, and slashes mating calls 26%, but increases the ivory tusks a whopping 148%. Thus
making this quite an investment for your tribe.. "So, how many can I put you down for?"

I realize that I am making some huge leaps here, but the reality of all this is upon us. And
it's going to be up to each one of us to decide exactly when enough is enough and what
we are willing to tolerate to still be able to function as a cohesive society. I'm not too sure
that we need to do everything that we can do. I think some things are better left alone.

Cloning is, to me a polar issue. I think there are other issues, just as important before us,
like should we cure a problem with a child when we first notice it as an embryo, a
problem that will be life threatening. Or what if the problem is not a life threatening, but
cosmetic? Would it be right to alter the genes to spare little Johnny the family ears.
Science is challenged with exploring, understanding and growing; but at what cost? I'm
not too sure that we ought to be charging ahead in exploration, without a clear grasp on
what we will do with the results. Often, science leads to unexpected results in pursuit of
something else. In those cases, I think it's ok to not fully understand what to do with the
new data; "we were looking for something else and happened upon this..So, now what do
we do?"
That example is quite dis-similar from an example where we know full well that which
the result of an action will produce, but are still unclear on what we should do with it.
Cloning is the later example.

In my opinion, we need to take a hard look at the effects this will have on our society,
and world population. Critical questioning and retrospection after we have created a new
society of cloned humans, farm animals and slaves seems absurd to me. We are all
affected by the outcome of science, not just the scientists locked away in a secret lab. I
don't think science can exist without some degree of morality.
There needs to be some checks and balances in place before we attempt to go where no
man has gone before.