What is the moral/ethical line that science should not cross?

With science and technology improving so rapidly, I thought I'd take a moment to reflect and share this question (and my corresponding opinion) with you guys (and gals).

What is the moral or ethical line that science shouldn't cross?
For those confused by this question, I'm asking at what point is science tampering with things it shouldn't?

I particularly came up with this question after recently reading Flowers for Algernon, a story about a 30 year old mentally retarded adult named Charlie Gordon, with an IQ of 67, who is given a chance to be normal (intelligence-wise).

Anyways, my opinion is that any human-gene tampering should be off-limits.

I shouldn't say that. I should say, gene-ENHANCING. Any enhancements should be avoided.

I'm not really a religious person, but I don't think we were meant to have more powerful eyes than we do, more intelligence than we have, etc. I also believe that if we ARE meant to have these things, that evolution can take care of it.

Fixes, I'm good with. Mistakes that cause slight enhancements (let's say, sometime in the future when they can give blind people sight, the surgery goes slightly wrong and they can see better than normal). I'm okay with that too. Purposely enhancing senses and abilities, including cognitive, seems wrong.

So is cloning (unless for an army, because, you know, who doesn't want a clone army as long as there's no Order 66?). Synthetic organisms repulse me. It's not natural.

Just my thoughts.

I subscribe to Kurzweil's singularity. That's my answer. (There isn't a line. Make clones, harvest organs, whatever. I just want to have a ridealong with robo-cop)

Of course, my apathy won’t be the norm. I’m sure people will take issue, and they probably should. I hear normals have something called ‘morals.’ I dunno, sounds iffy to me.

I don't believe scientists should play God...

I'm like No, only more so. not only do I think there is no line, I think it is our duty as a species to go as far as possible, we HAVE to do these things.

>It's not natural
>Typing that phrase on a synthetic creation

Hah.

There is no line. Some of the greatest enhancements to human life were discovered by going beyond what was considered right, and into the territory of evil.

>It's not natural
>Typing that phrase on a synthetic creation

Hah.

There is no line. Some of the greatest enhancements to human life were discovered by going beyond what was considered right, and into the territory of evil.

This.
I think crossing the lines and ignoring the norms are the only way to create the really cool things we can only dream of now.

I shouldn't say that. I should say, gene-ENHANCING. Any enhancements should be avoided.

I'm not really a religious person, but I don't think we were meant to have more powerful eyes than we do, more intelligence than we have, etc. I also believe that if we ARE meant to have these things, that evolution can take care of it.

Fixes, I'm good with. Mistakes that cause slight enhancements (let's say, sometime in the future when they can give blind people sight, the surgery goes slightly wrong and they can see better than normal). I'm okay with that too. Purposely enhancing senses and abilities, including cognitive, seems wrong.

So is cloning (unless for an army, because, you know, who doesn't want a clone army as long as there's no Order 66?). Synthetic organisms repulse me. It's not natural.

Just my thoughts.

I'm sorry but I fully advocate genetic science, my Mum's cousin had a kid who was born with a severe genetic disease if I remember correctly. He was born with a hole in his heart, no palate in his mouth, deformities, a brain that does not work properly and a whole host of other problems that means he has had to go to have operations every couple of months for the entirety of his short life. The poor kid has a bad standard of living to say the least, if they had cracked the genetic research to fix all this in the womb then I'm sure they would have leapt at the opportunity to have that done.

I'm not really a religious person, but I don't think we were meant to have more powerful eyes than we do

By that logic you should smash up anyone's glasses in your family.

more intelligence than we have,

Once we have the ability to bring other people's intelligence up, I'm pretty sure we'll be so far advanced as a race of people that this point will be redundant any way.

The advancement of science is a beautiful thing and I say that there is no line sparing two things:

Weapons development - which basically consists of, hmm, I want to kill more of those people over there, but I can't do it with this gun, what can I do to kill more people?

Anything that detriments the health of an unborn child, baring abortion. That designer babies crap, that's not fair on the child because it has to grow up with its parents shitty decisions.

I do believe there are certain things we shouldn't do WITH science. Science itself should have no boundaries so long as its experiments are conducted in an ethical manner.

I'm supportive of the idea of genetic research, especially for the purposes of eliminating certain terrible genetic disorders. I personally detest the idea of genetic 'improvement,' though. Gattica, dudes. Philosophically, I think people should always be allowed to have flaws within certain reasonable limits. I love the idea of getting rid of genetic disorders, but I don't love the idea of getting rid of poor eyesight genes, 'undesirable' height and weight genetics, or even things like autism or Down's Syndrome. I really just have a huge problem with the idea of placing value on human beings based on their ability to participate in society as we have constructed it. The value of a human being is that they are a human being.

I do believe there are certain things we shouldn't do WITH science. Science itself should have no boundaries so long as its experiments are conducted in an ethical manner.

I'm supportive of the idea of genetic research, especially for the purposes of eliminating certain terrible genetic disorders. I personally detest the idea of genetic 'improvement,' though. Gattica, dudes. Philosophically, I think people should always be allowed to have flaws within certain reasonable limits. I love the idea of getting rid of genetic disorders, but I don't love the idea of getting rid of poor eyesight genes, 'undesirable' height and weight genetics, or even things like autism or Down's Syndrome. I really just have a huge problem with the idea of placing value on human beings based on their ability to participate in society as we have constructed it. The value of a human being is that they are a human being.

I actually think we should try and get rid of bad eyesight genes and such, simply because I think such genes only have disadvantages.
After reading your post however, I have somewhat changed my opinion. I no longer believe genetical modification should have no boundaries, I now believe that parents should only be allowed to 'fix' things like bad eyesight genes and maybe Down's syndrome, but not things like hair colour, skin colour, height (unless they'll be a dwarf) and personality genes. I fear that allowing them to change such things will basically eliminate genetical diversity eventually, as parents fashion their kid's genes to society's norms and views on beauty and perfection.

I actually think we should try and get rid of bad eyesight genes and such, simply because I think such genes only have disadvantages.
After reading your post however, I have somewhat changed my opinion. I no longer believe genetical modification should have no boundaries, I now believe that parents should only be allowed to 'fix' things like bad eyesight genes and maybe Down's syndrome

Well that post backfired, then. <___<'

Well that post backfired, then. <___<'

Once a post leaves your computer, you no longer control it. It can do whatever it wants. It can wreak havoc, unleash wars...

True, I just thought I was better at argument/debate than that.

I don't normally convince people of the opposite (or near-opposite) of my intended point.

You should look at it as a gift (from your mommy's and daddy's ungenetically engineered genes).
Master this art, and you'll be able to convince anyone, just by trying to defend the opposite point

The "Line" is a faux-construct of mankind's latent fears of uncertainty in the face of the unknown.

Once you can overcome this fear, you can be as God.

You can be like me, is what he's saying.

I don't need to be 'as god'. I shall be god himself!

Perhaps I watch too much Fringe...

I would draw the line at evil acts.
We did achieve some pretty hefty leaps in scientific understanding in the past by committing (usually) mass atrocities, but I do not feel that we need to go to such lengths given today's scientific understanding.

That being said, everyone has their own ideas for what is an acceptable place to stop in the name of science.
The best move anyone can ever do is ignore all of the zealots and self righteous religious types and just do what they know needs to be done in order to progress our knowledge in any field.

If we can develop the ability to regrow lost organs without having to cut them from another living person, then I don't think people should argue the steps required to achieve such a marvel. If we can start from a few cells and grow someone a new kidney, but the only thing stopping that from happening is the collective ignorance of an increasingly smaller group of people, then the obvious option is to just ignore them.

People love to protest any sort of cloning, stem cell research, etc, because those practices do not line up with what they think is "right".
Remember that it is the same people that hold rallies to protest gay marriage, picket gay soldiers funerals, and swarm on abortion clinics that have the biggest problems with scientific progress.

Claiming that we are playing God by performing these acts has always been silly to me.
People classify playing God as any sort of tinkering with our genetics, modifying ourselves above the norm, and generally toying with our basic construction.

By that standard, anyone who has ever had surgery for anything has been manipulated by a person who is playing God.
Had your tonsils removed?
Some surgeon crossed the line and turned you in to something you shouldn't have been changed in to.

Having your tonsils, appendix, wisdom teeth removed because if they weren't, you would probably die/live in agonizing pain is no different than if we can rewire your genetics while you are a fetus so that you aren't born with a heart defect or some other genetic defect.
It is the same principal, just different methods of repair.

Yes, topics like this will always be controversial.
But just because someone is offended, does not make them in the right.

I believe that we shouldn't do anything to a person without their consent. Past that, we should be doing everything we can to learn everything about everything.

I believe that we shouldn't do anything to a person without their consent. Past that, we should be doing everything we can to learn everything about everything.

Agreed.
I forgot to add that to my post.
If someone chooses to partake in an experiment/donate their body to scientific research, then that is their choice and they get a high five for progressing science.

I just remembered this article I read about this woman who was alive about a hundred years ago, who basically made modern science possible.
She was a black woman who was born with immortal cells.
They did not age and die like normal cells, even outside of the body, provided they kept receiving energy, they lived, indefinitely.
She went to the hospital at some point for some reason, and one of the doctors noticed something wasn't right about the way her body reacted to certain tests (I believe). So he took some samples from her and sent them to a lab to be tested and figured out. All of this without her permission of course. That is when they discovered that her cells were immortal and minds were blown. They tried to track her down, but she was a black woman in an era that didn't do a whole lot to benefit that wort of thing. She received poor medical treatment in her segregated section of the hospital she visited and died of (cervical?) cancer before they could catch up with her.

So, cells taken illegally, immorally from an extraordinary person have quite literally allowed us to accomplish what we have today.
We would be lost without her (non approved) contribution to medical science.
They have been constantly allowing her cells to replicate since then and are what is used in nearly all research because of her cell's abilities to survive outside of a body for a long period of time, and to not die immediately after being infected with a virus/bacteria/contaminant/anomaly.

Without an illegal/immoral act we would not live in the world we do today.
Bam, perspective.