Student Debate Review - "This house believes that ethical considerations hold back scientific and technological progress."

by Sylvain Frey

Personal impressions

I was having difficulties following what the speakers meant, in particular the second speaker for proposition, so my notes sometimes may seem a little senseless. The speakers had a lot of examples but their goals were not very clear. I think the reason is that the motion was not very well formulated.

Actually the fact that "ethics hold back science" is clearly true for both sides, the real goal was to discuss if it is good or not. For that, precise and topical examples were missed. I think discussing clearly about cloning, stem cells, nuclear power and sustainable energies would have been more interesting. Concerning the debate itself I was a little disappointed because of this "missing point".

Actually, I have found some interesting arguments that I would reformulate as follows: one must not confuse "scientific progress", which is an abstract notion, with "making science", which is a human activity. Scientists are humans, they don't make science just to make science but in order to have fun. After that, sometimes, they imagine they "make the national progress". So scientists can't make science without ethical considerations, like any other human activity. And a scientist who doesn't agree with the science he makes should stop it because it is senseless, for him and for the society.(I use the expression "making science" on purpose, it is really how I see scientific activity: manufacturing something.)

Debate Summary

Motion: "This house believes that ethical considerations hold back scientific and technological progress."

First speaker for proposition:

A definition of ethics could be: "moral consideration of people's right or wrong behaviour". The main representations of ethics are: religion, laws,... Scientific creation is similar to artistic creation, it needs freedom because freedom generates discoveries. That's why ethical considerations hold back scientific innovation. Of course there are exceptions, but "exceptions confirm the rule". For instance, the Manhattan project that gathered brilliant scientists to construct a nuclear bomb before the Nazis during WWII. Its director, Robert Oppenheimer, opposed to nuclear proliferation before the end of the war. Then he was one of the first victims of Maccarthism: ethics opposed to scientific research.

First speaker for opposition:

Ethics are "principles of conduct to determine what is good or bad", e.g. power. For example ethics invented sustainable energies, now environment is a "new science".Ethics change, evolve, and need science. For instance, in the past contraception was compared to abortion and forbidden. Today we know that science was right to evolve ethical considerations.

Second speaker for proposition:

The previous speaker was right: ethics change. But there is one thing that doesn't change: humans' aspiration for progress.Galileo had to change his ideas, he is an example of a scientist hindered by ethics.(...)

Second speaker for opposition:

Ethics can encourage science. Example: German scientist Von Braun, must construct rockets to reach the US. After the war he constructed rockets that sent animals, then people, into space.We must not forget that a lot of scientists were involved in war and had to protect their country. Thanks to their ethics, WWII was not a nuclear war.Conclusion with a citation of Von Braun: "Scientific efforts are useless without an ethical framework."


Debate:

First speaker: In the speeches ethics come first and guides science. In reality ethics is a framework and science allows to go out of it with new possibilities.

Second speaker: Ethics is a basis, humans can't live without it, it is possible to combine it with science.

Third speaker: Ethics is useless. For example during WWII the Nazis had no "classical" ethical framework and could conduct very interesting experiments on Jews that are useful today.

Fourth speaker: These experiments were made away from the scientific community, they can't be considered as scientific. The Nuremberg Trials condemned these experiments.

Fifth speaker: Von Braun was the father of V1 and V2, he was not so an ethicist...

Fourth speaker (again): Ethical questioning is creative. Examples: surgery, environmental sciences,...

Summator for opposition:

We demonstrated that ethics is not holding back science. Sustainable energies show that ethics helps science. Man is superior to science, and ethics is a motivation for scientists.Ethics make men, men make science. One must not confuse "pure scientific research" with what Bacon called "what makes the nation progress".


Summator for proposition:

Ethics are in a lot of fields. Some of these fields make money, some others rule people.Science helps us to understand our world and save lives. So let medicine go on. What are you afraid of? A vaccine for HIV? Paraplegic people walking? Blind people seeing? If you are against it, say it to kill people yourself.Vote: the motion was largely rejected.


Sylvain Frey is a masters student at MOSIG/ENSIMAG