Should There Be Limits On Science?

[T.G.G. Moogly]

This is a moral question.

Not a scientific question.

Science tells us absolutely nothing about morality.

Yes, but science “morals”, aka ethics. We have a large number of ethical rules in place for various things. Many are prudent to stop and think.

For example, the article states differences in ethical regulations for primates vs. non primates, and indeed for “close primates”
And we already have many regulations on what we are allowed to do with other animals.

IN general, I think these are good conversations.

Lion is correct that in this case it’s just a blastocyst (well, he said zygote, but he either didn’t read the article or doesn’t understand the difference - it was a blastocyst and then named as an embryo,) which has very different ethical considerations than a developed being. So in this case it’s the point of time where people start thinking.

The article points out that it was not able to survive past day 19, and that the learning was in how the cells communicated with each other, for use in less regulated human cell-porcine chimera.

It’s a good discussion to ask,
1. If it’s a pig with a human heart, is it a human?
And
2. If it’s not a human, is it still okay to raise pigs with human hearts for the purpose of killing them and taking their hearts?

We’ve kind of decided as a society, though not universally, that it is not okay to raise primates for body parts. But we’ve definitely already decided, though again not universally, that it *is* okay to raise pigs for bacon.

We’ve discussed as a society, with some objecting vociferously, that it is okay to use human blastocysts for research, but not humans past viability, with the space between those two moments very heavily debated.

Just so we don't start putting limits on what we can all talk about.

 

[JohnG]

Certainly there are some ethical concerns that need to be considered. But all too often, they boil down to "We would like to provide hope to transplant patients and improve the effectiveness and safety of pharmaceuticals, but we mustn't in case we upset the Pope".

The Pope and his followers can kiss my hairy fat backside. Give a detailed, explicit, and relevant description of how a given research project will cause harm that outweighs its benefits, or GTFO.

In another scenario, I've read about archaeologists who feel it's in their best interest (for several stated reasons) to respect the customs of local indigenous people when excavating human remains in their territory. Some of the reasons are practical in nature - cooperation can reveal new information.