Fw: Setting moral and legal limits on scientists and their work

[Guest guest]

Sorry, but I just cannot seem to clean these files...love...Lea

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``````

>>>Setting moral and legal limits on scientists and their work

>>>( The Washington Times )

>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>----

>>> While I support any effort to block and expose the infiltration of junk

>>>science and other irrationality into public discourse, I thought

>>> " Scientists increasingly find themselves on defensive " (Culture et

>>>cetera,

>>>Jan. 15) to be one-sided. It was also naive in the way it lumped together

>>>moral objections to how the knowledge is obtained with junk science in

>>>the

>>>courtroom and attempts to quash discussion of politically incorrect

>>>facts.

>>>

>>>Perhaps the best place to start is where the article ended, with

>>>Teller's statement, " There is no case where ignorance should be preferred

>>>to knowledge - especially if the knowledge is terrible. " This is the sort

>>>of prescription that sounds terribly noble and fearless, but as a

>>>scientific statement it is just silly posturing. In this case, however,

>>>we

>>>can leave aside whether it is true, because it is irrelevant. The moral

>>>objections to research, say animal testing and fetal stem cell studies,

>>>are

>>>to the means, not to the resulting knowledge.

>>>

>>>The Cato Institute's Milloy and the article's author seem to be

>>>arguing, without quite saying so, that because no knowledge should be

>>>forbidden, no means of obtaining knowledge should be forbidden. This is

>>>preposterous.

>>>

>>>Scientists are not above morality or the law, nor are they above society.

>>>Scientists cannot, and in innumerable cases do not, assert that

>>>scientific

>>>ends, however wondrous the promises, justify ethically objectionable

>>>scientific means. Nor can scientists expect society to fund activities it

>>>finds morally repugnant. The independence, the extraordinary

>>>independence,

>>>that they are afforded comes from a largely pragmatic recognition that is

>>>the policy that is most efficient for obtaining valuable results.

>>>

>>>The misuse and suppression of knowledge for venal and ideological

>>>purposes

>>>must be resisted by exposing the facts and by scientific debate. However,

>>>moral objections to research methods are proper subjects for political

>>>and

>>>cultural debate. Mr. Milloy fights the good fight against junk science,

>>>but

>>>his complaint that criticism and political restriction of scientists'

>>>means

>>>amounts to " ideological " persecution is junk philosophy.

>>>

>>>SEAN FITZPATRICK

>>> City, N.Y.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>

>>

>

>