This week's essay set dealt with a very interesting topic that seemed to all relate back to biology. Fortunately I didn't need to review old high school notes to understand the matter. In Dr. Caplan's article "Should scientists create deadly viruses? Yes, says bioethicist," he raises quite a few thought provoking questions. He asks, should scientists study and create such viruses that can be dangerous and who gets to know about these viruses? These questions involve and provoke many personal opinions, but in the end Caplan believes that yes there should be scientists who study and create such viruses in order to understand the virus and its complexity as well as coming up with a cure to it. Caplan also argues that as far as who gets to work with/know about such projects, knowledge of such projects should be censored and restricted to the scientists and experts involved in the area of matter until they deem it is necessary to share with the public.
The next article was "Evolutionary biology and neuroscience are adding to our understanding of historically unscientific area," written by Patrick Tucker. In Tucker's article, he opens up this idea of morality, and that it's not just something we've adopted from our personal religions, but rather it is a "decision-making process" that they have pretty much got down to a science...literally. Trucker uses the analogy that our brain is much like a computer; that the means by which we understand right from wrong is our moral grammar(codes) and all those codes go to our moral hardware (the brain). Tucker also brings up the point that while we may never actually get to see morality on the screens in laboratories, it can be measured using the MEG and the data it produces may help to understand our morality scientifically.
Overall, I really enjoyed this week's essay set. Both articles seemed interesting and made me question myself on how I would answer the questions/points being raised in the articles. Even though I really liked the idea of our morality being a scientifical decision making process, how we have a moral grammar and that our brain is in fact the moral hardware;I didn't find it as interesting as Dr. Caplan's article. While I don't think scientists should just be standing around in a lab trying to birth a new plague, I do think trying to re-create a virus that currently has no cure yet is a valid effort.Seriously, have you seen Contagion? No but all jokes aside, I recently read an article that with the help of gamers, scientists were able to reconstruct a 3D model of a protein that enables the AIDS virus to multiply . By reconstructing this model, scientists are better abled to understand where to target this protein to enable the multiplication of AIDS in the cells. Tucker's article then brought up the question on who should have access/knowledge of such projects and censorship. I don't think scientists/ experts should have total access/knowledge of such things, but I don't think the government should either. I think they both need to know and share information as a means of checks and balances. However, I would expect that since the scientists/experts will be working on such projects, they out of everyone should be more knowledgeable about what ever it is they are working on. Isn't it interesting that Caplan's article questions our morality on virus research and accessibility, and yet Tucker wrote about it.
Here are the links if you'd like to read it, very interesting.
Dr. Caplan's article : http://vitals.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/27/9748055-should-scientists-create-deadly-viruses-yes-says-bioethicist
Patrick Tucker's article: http://www.wfs.org/Jan-Feb%2009/MoralBrain1.htm
ALSO!
Article to Gamers help cure aids article : http://www.geekologie.com/2011/09/gamers-now-with-more-helping-cure-aids.php
AND! Trailer to Contagion
No comments:
Post a Comment