This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comment

← Who matters (or should) when scientists engage in ethical decision-making?

aquilacane's Avatar Jump to comment 3 by aquilacane

  1. Do you feel like you have an interest in what science and scientists are up to? If so, how would you describe that interest? If not, why not?

Yes I have an interest in what science and scientists are up to. I would describe it as good ‘ol curiosity.

  1. Do you think scientists should treat “the public” as an interested party when they try to make ethical decisions? Why or why not?

Yes I do think scientists should treat the public as an interested party when they try to make any decisions. I think this because the public is an interested party.

  1. If you think scientists should treat “the public” as an interested party when they try to make ethical decisions, what should scientists be doing to get an accurate read on the public’s interests?

Scientists shouldn’t be doing anything to get an accurate read on the public’s interest; they only need to be aware that the public is an interested party. And make their science available to them.

  1. And, for the sake of symmetry, do you think members of the public ought to take account of the interests of science or scientists when they try to make ethical decisions? Why or why not?

No, the public does not need to take account of the interests of science or scientists when trying to make ethical decisions. I think this because science has nothing to do with ethics; it is a methodology for finding evidence-based information. I do believe the public should take account of the ethics related evidence produced via the scientific method if they want science to help them with their ethics.

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:02:38 UTC | #937041