ISSUE069 【六人行8.06】by Eileen

Eileen312UID: 2648750

I-69"Government should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development"

WORDS: 658
Opinions differ on the question of how much freedom scientific behavior should be endowed with by the government. I boundmentally support the speaker’s assertion in that government should seldom interfere with scientific activity, unless scientists obviously threaten social security and go against human interests.

Admittedly, scientists are not as perfect as saints and occasionally need government to correct their researching directions. As is known, nowadays we are facing numerous tough challenges, such as food shortage, energy security, and climate abnormity, which urgently threaten human beings. Yet some scientists might shrink back from these research topics realizing that they are unimaginably difficult, time-consuming, and not sufficiently founded. For instance, one celebrated professor in our university turned his focus from solar cells to projects from 3M Company because of 3M’s abundant researching funds. Under these cases, governors should take immediate measures- either financially or politically- to restrict certain scientific forces into human’s main challenges. Another occasion governors should get involved is when scientific behavior conflicts with basic social ethics. Take, for example, human cloning, which is privately carried on by a handful of scientists. While satisfy their curiosity and desire for quick success, these scientists are stirring huge ethical chaos: a daughter clones her father and keeps him as a baby; a cloning kid might have five parents; a creature artificially cultivated from monkey and human cells talk with no idea of whether he is an animal or human… Can our government stand by and do nothing? Absolutely not! Governors should take every possible manner to restrict and even forbidden such research.

Fortunately, extreme cases mentioned above are rare. Most majorities of researches are carried out by well-educated and conscientious scientists, who should be relied on and independent of government. To be prepared for a scientist, a person must not only absorb the finest human knowledge which could help him be alert to society-beneficial research topics, but also stick to common ethical social values which could guarantee that that he would never go beyond human morality. What is more, scientific research and development are under the supervision of public media- a more effective way to shape researching behavior than direct governmental interference. Say, the birth of Dolly the clone sheep, immediately became top lines on newspaper, which caused public outcry for mammal cloning. This huge public pressure prevented or at least delayed some scientists’ cloning attempt. On the contrary, without public and media’s objective voice, those scientists might consider governors were so ignorant in scientific knowledge that they prejudicially forbade mammal cloning; and thus mammal cloning would be continued under the governors’ nose. The point here is it would work better if governors reasonably use the power of public media, but rather directly restrict scientific behavior.

Actually, improper political restriction on scientific study would frustrate both the scientists and scientific development, which would further prevent technological challenges form being overcome. Politics and science are different braches of human knowledge. Although politicians or governors may know some common sense in scientific field, they could never become equivalences to scientists in recognizing which kind of research is feasible in current situation and which kinds of researches are beneficial to human beings. The history of human anatomy is a good example here. Even before the Middle Ages, physical scientists had found anatomy could save people’s lives from incurable diseases. Yet at the times when religious power manipulated everything, anatomy was considered to rebel the god and several related scientists was even sentenced to death. As a result, human anatomy is delayed for more than one thousand years. Without the religious governors’ prevention, how many lives could be saved and how much further had modern surgery developed?

In conclusion, on most occasions scientists should be independent of governors, in case that scientific development might be obstructed by unreasonable political restrictions. Nevertheless, when certain scientists’ behavior is recognized by public and other scientists to be immoral and threats to human society, governments should set limitations.