From Edward Jenner to the discovery of h. pylori, science has seemingly found her greatest discoveries from individuals who weren’t considered “bioethical”. Science, in my opinion, has never worked best when it was constrained; rather, it seems to have worked hand-in-hand with scientific ingenuity, inventiveness, and even creativity (like Kukele’s dream of Benzene).
Over the last thirty years, laws, regulations, and folkways seem to have formed a vice-grip over science. If we want to create a drug against a particular strain of virus, it may take a decade or more before it’ll ever get to human testing. What is the purpose of arduous testing when there are willing individuals who want to do their part to find a cure? Why should science continuously halt itself? If Jenner were alive today, he’d go to jail for murder; Lady Montagu would be put on trial for felony Child Neglect; Chinese and Turkish cultures who made their children inhale smallpox crusts to protect against the virus would probably cause Bush to call for U.N. sanctions. The pursuit of science has always demanded blood - human blood - to unlock its secrets. Inevitably, I fear, scientists will get fed up and flock somewhere else to do research.
I am at an impasse :smack: . I certainly don’t want to see people get hurt but I also don’t want to see the flow of science slow down either. What do you guys think? Is our understanding of Bioethics reasonable? Do you think it will help or impede scientific discoveries in the future?
Thanks for reading.
- Brian
P.S. Also, is the American concept of Bioethics universal? Does everyone feel this way, or at least similarly?