Question

@OtherWorldly

Answer 1

Science has always been a victim of debates over its ethical standards. I say “victim” because how are we to benefit from ethical experiments? Would you consider dissecting bodies stolen from graves ethical? At some point someone had to have done such a “crime”, yet in the hope of benefitting the world. There is always a point when advancing science becomes unethical in nature. The debate over cloning is a rather unique one. On one hand, we have the possibility of reviving extinct animals; on the other, therapeutic cloning. Mary Shelly addresses this controversial topic by showing her clearly opposing views on science in this area. On page 30, Shelley describes Victor Frankenstein as a man that “darkness had no effect”. A churchyard to him was “merely the receptacle of bodies deprived of life…” Shelly tactfully portrays Victor as an un-normal person, who eventually is the one to create a monster. It is a man that spent days in vaults and charnel-houses, deprived of sleep that figures out how to create life. When Waldman restores the exhausted Victor after finding him in the middle of nowhere, Victor warns him, “…how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge and how much happier that man is who believes his native town to be the world, than he who aspires to become greater than his nature will allow,” (31). Realizing his mistakes, Victor cautions Waldman the dangers of creating life and animating already dead body parts. Shelly shows her ideas of a limit on knowledge, drawing a line at when it starts to “play God”. What does it really mean though? There are so many things in our modern world, when compared to Greek mythology, would become hubris. For example, airplanes, apparently in one myth, Icarus sets the example that humans are not meant to fly. Another point, also made by Hagos in “The Ethical Limit of Knowledge: Principles of Plenitude and Continuity” is that limits from the past do not apply to our modern world. Hagos uses the myth of Prometheus giving the secret of making fire to humans. It brings up the question, were humans meant to have fire? This just goes to show that “knowledge should not be subjected to ethical limitations based on standards derived from inauthentic social relationships,” (Hagos 12). In our modern world, do limits placed by societies in the past (in an effort to control people) really apply?
In the article by Shapiro, she writes about reviving the woolly mammoth in the Asian elephants. This is an excellent use of cloning, as it protects the near-extinction Asian elephants. The genes from the woolly mammoths give the Asian elephants more cold resistant features, like thick hair and fat for insulation. Despite the possibility of humans using cloning for no-so-good reasons, there are still great ways to use it. We can use it in medical treatment, growing new organs, or even therapeutic cloning. In an article by NIH (National Human Genome Research Institute), it describes how therapeutic cloning can be used in medical research. Therapeutic cloning creates a cloned embryo to make stem cells that can be “used in experiments aimed at understanding disease and developing new treatments for disease” (NIH). Of course, it does have some ethical issues, as cloning through this method would result in the “destruction of human embryos in the test tube” (NIH). That would also bring up the constant debate over where life “begins”. My point is that there is not necessarily a universal ethical standard when it comes to science. It is up to an individual to make a standard.

Answer 2

there is my short answer

Answer 3

i am sleeping now

Answer 4

k good night smarty pants

Answer 5

wait wait

Answer 6

btw when i said y did u put "on one hand" and not on the other hand what u did is correct because if u keep on reading what u said makes sense XD i just didn't have the whole thing to know that *thumbs up* ur never gonna make a mistake r u?

Answer 7

:"( night XD u couldn't wait haha

Answer 8

Oh haha, sorry