Should science ever be stopped?

Moral Maze

BBC

Society & Culture, Religion & Spirituality

4.4 • 623 Ratings

🗓️ 23 June 2023

⏱️ 57 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

Scientists have created the first synthetic human embryos using stem cells. The breakthrough could help research into genetic disorders, but it raises ethical questions about the creation of life without the need for eggs or sperm. While nobody is currently suggesting growing these embryos into a baby, the rapid progress has outpaced the law.

This prompts a wider question: instead of society having to play catch up with science, should we be having a more frank conversation about the moral responsibilities of science itself? Some believe that scientists need their own version of the Hippocratic Oath, a regulatory system of ethical standards, similar to doctors. Others think that will stifle creativity, enthusiasm and academic freedom.

The human drive for discovery is the engine of progress – and we have demonstrably never had it so good. But are there things we should not want to discover? Are we capable of making a conscious decision to say “no further” if the potential consequences of pursuing knowledge are both good and bad? For some, science is morally-neutral, its advancement is inevitable, and it’s down to society to set the rules about what to do with the findings of scientific research. For others, simply relying on the moral-neutrality of science could be humanity’s fatal flaw, and there should be more democratically-accountable oversight of the research. If that’s the case, where should the ethical lines be drawn? As well as the consequentialist arguments, some make the distinction between science as a means of discovering the natural world and ruling it; in religious terms, between seeking to understand God and ‘playing God’.

When, if ever, should we apply the brakes on science?

Producer: Dan Tierney.

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	BBC Sounds, music, radio, podcasts.
0:04.7	Good evening, ever since the Garden of Eden, knowledge has been morally ambiguous.
0:09.7	Science has immeasurably improved life, but also blighted it, magnified human potential for both good and evil.
0:16.7	I'm in the first generation to have lived their entire lives in the knowledge that mankind could annihilate itself in an afternoon. We can destroy life with a bang, or literally,
0:26.9	by degrees, and we're on the brink of creating it. This week, scientists said they've made
0:31.5	synthetic human embryos from stem cells, no eggs or sperm involved. It'll help in the study of genetic disorders,
0:39.3	apparently. There's no suggestion they'll move on to making synthetic human babies, but parallel
0:44.7	experiments on mice have already developed the beginnings of a brain and a beating heart.
0:50.0	And in this, as in many other areas, science has outstripped the moral debate about what, if any, limit should be put on it.
0:57.6	One side of the argument is that science is too important to be left a vested interest or the whims of scientists.
1:03.4	There should be some kind of democratic control of pace and direction.
1:07.1	Scientists should sign up to ethical commitment similar to a doctor's Hippocratic Oath.
1:12.3	The other side has two rather contradictory strands that regulation would stifle creativity, close down the pursuit of knowledge,
1:19.9	and or trying to direct or put the brakes on science is a pointless exercise.
1:25.9	The genie can't be put it back in the bottle. There'll always be
1:28.3	someone somewhere who'll do what you think ought to be stopped. Should and how should
1:34.4	science be controlled? That's the moral maze tonight. Our panel Ash Sarka from the Navarra Media
1:39.1	Group, the historian Tim Stanley, the chief executive of the NHS Confederation Matthew Taylor, and the Anglican priest and opinionator, if that's a word, Giles Fraser.
1:50.0	Matthew Taylor, society lost its grip on science, if it ever had one.
1:56.1	Yeah, well, I think science and technology are arguably going to be more important to our future than politics and policy.
2:01.5	So I support the idea of an ethical framework for science.
2:05.1	My concern is what such a framework might comprise and who would we trust to enforce it.
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from BBC, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of BBC and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.