This house believes science and morality don't mix - opening speeches

Introduction
Our debate today is “science and morality don’t mix”. It is a fact that over the years, science has made research that some people disapprove of, because of morality. The first question our debaters will have to answer is: what exactly is morality?  This is the less obvious of the terms of the motion (even if you can argue that science is a very large term and need a proper scope), because even if we often use it, we rarely think about its meaning. I will let the debaters pick up the definition they want and just refer to morality as values human beings choose for them. [...] 

by EL

First proposing speech
The very fact that I am at this precise moment, typing down on my laptop my greetings to you, dear reader, is the undeniable proof that advance in Science and Technology have greatly changed our ways of living, thinking, and debating. Indeed, no one can deny the fact that scientific breakthroughs have had a direct and lasting impact on our daily life. In many ways, we have been changed and biased by Science as much as we have had a hand in developing it. [...] 

by JB

First opposing speech
“There can’t be scientific morality. Yet, there also can’t be science without morality” Through this quote, Henri Poincaré highlights the ambiguous relation that connects science to morality. First, let us ask ourselves what are Science and Morality. [...] 

by HD

Introduction
Our debate today is “science and morality don’t mix”. It is a fact that over the years, science has made research that some people disapprove of, because of morality. The first question our debaters will have to answer is: what exactly is morality?  This is the less obvious of the terms of the motion (even if you can argue that science is a very large term and need a proper scope), because even if we often use it, we rarely think about its meaning. I will let the debaters pick up the definition they want and just refer to morality as values human beings choose for them.

I see two different ways for science and morality to mix, or not, depending on the side you’re defending. In fact, you can use morality to narrow the scope of scientific research, or use science to defend your morality. 

Recent events show that the civil society feels legitimate to take part into the choice of future directions of research, and wants to keep an eye on its scientists. For example the President of the United States recently created a “Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical issues” supposed to advise him “on issues that may emerge from advances in biomedicine and related areas of science and technology”, so its website informs us. Its intention is to ensure that science is “conducted in an ethically responsible manner”, whatever this may mean. In other countries, public debates took place too, for example one on nanotechnologies in France (which was in fact not really successful).

This implies that scientists are unable to choose by themselves what they want to study, either because they forget the possible consequences of their studies or because they are blinded by the need of results.  Is such a statement true?

This implies too that civil society is able to understand what is at stake, which would not be a problem if people really took the time to think before making up their mind. Is it truly the case?

Of course, there are some fields of science which are always controversial, if only because they hurt religious conceptions of morality. I could quote here the embryonic stem cells research or the accusations of “playing God”: for example scientists have created a synthetic genome, which is self-replicating, in a bacterial cell.

Some are also shocked by the way science can be managed, for example by animal testing, and put forward the sensibility of animals in order to try to forbid such testing, while scientists pretend that we can’t do without it, except if we just stop medicinal research.

Science is supposed to make society progress. Does science endanger freedom or well-being? To my mind this question must be answered if the debaters want to convince us.

I have no doubt that the debaters will play fair and try to answer all these questions using interesting arguments and examples. We will have the pleasure to welcome one guest, whose mission will be to bring another view of the debate. As usual, every comment is most welcome and we expect you to take an active part in this debate.

And now let’s debate!

EL

First proposing speech
The very fact that I am at this precise moment, typing down on my laptop my greetings to you, dear reader, is the undeniable proof that advance in Science and Technology have greatly changed our ways of living, thinking, and debating. Indeed, no one can deny the fact that scientific breakthroughs have had a direct and lasting impact on our daily life. In many ways, we have been changed and biased by Science as much as we have had a hand in developing it. 

Nuclear plants, the Internet, GPS, computers, among many other things are all the offspring of some fabulous scientific discoveries, some of them being the result of research spanning over decades, and sometimes even centuries. These technologies are profoundly anchored in the world as we know it, and were they to disappear tomorrow, the consequences would be unfathomable.

Recent (and some more ancient) events in Japan have led some people to think that some technologies should not be so widely used, without the full consent of neighbouring citizens or the approval of the public opinion. They hold inherent risks, can potentially lead to catastrophes of a scale no one would have dared to imagine only a century ago, and inevitably come with the matter of weighting the benefits against the danger they are representing.

One would thus certainly come to think that Science and Morality are completely intertwined. They do indeed interact, but only in a not at all straightforward way, or how many are willing to believe.

To understand this, we first have to look at what motivates us to continue pushing the boundaries of Science. It would be easy to think that we search things in order to use them in a certain way. In fact, most of the time, it is completely the other way round.  We either stumble accidentally upon some new fact, questioning or truth by accident, or discover them while trying to understand a precise natural phenomenon. It would be absurd to think that these centuries of painstaking accumulation of knowledge in physics and mathematics have been made in order to give birth to the atomic bomb.

There is always quite a lot of time between the moment something is discovered, and when that thing is used in a way which requires a judgement involving morality. When such questions are asked, the scientific background has already been in existence for many years. We cannot blame an unrelated experiment made in some small lab, decades ago, for an accident at a nuclear plant. 

If we haven’t given up on trying to make Mother Nature yield her most preciously kept secrets yet, even after centuries, it is mainly because we are curious beings by nature. Motivation can sometimes be said to be the will to develop a cure for some disease or to build a better weapon, but in the end they heavily rely on some thoroughly but independently built concepts and tools.

Furthermore, morality has nothing to do with our curiosity. Restricting it for morality’s sake would make us cease to be what we are. And then, would that be moral?

We must also keep in mind that morality is a very human concept. Just like ethics, it changes through time and cultures. What can be seen as outrageous today could be seen as completely normal in a few years. At first, people didn’t even have the right to perform an autopsy on a dead body. Tempering the genome of foetuses may get accepted more easily and more quickly than we think. And how can one say that doing so is against nature, when we are nothing but part of nature itself? Are we not here, in the “course” of nature?

Our lust for knowledge and our morality are two fundamental elements of our kind, but are far from being contradictory or mixed. Hindering one for the other would only limit the formidable ability to think, create, explore and understand the world we live that we have. 

J.B.

First opposing speech
“There can’t be scientific morality. Yet, there also can’t be science without morality” Through this quote, Henri Poincaré highlights the ambiguous relation that connects science to morality.

First, let us ask ourselves what are Science and Morality.

From a general perspective Science is a system of knowledge that could be defined through its goals. Science has mainly two missions. On one hand, it has to respond to our minds’ needs and thus quench our thirst for knowledge. On the other hand, it seeks to improve our material condition of living. Indeed, it enhances the practical aspects of life by explaining theory.

Besides, morality mainly refers to the standards imposed through a general demeanour accepted by society. This understanding of morality makes it entrenched and deprives scientist of their freedom of thinking. Based on this vision, society defines the realm of science and bounds scientific creativity.

However, another interesting aspect of morality has evolved by adapting to science.

We are talking here about Ethics. Indeed, the word Ethics comes from the Greek word êthikos, which means moral science [1]. Ethics are defined as cogitation on the consequences of our potential actions. The difference, here, is that ethics do not stand on biased social ideas and customs. It relies on philosophical concepts that push us to question our actions and ourselves. Moreover, ethics refers to a behavioural code, which stems from new and philosophically approved scientific practices. Thus, on the opposite of the common understanding of morality, ethics are in constant evolution by adapting to technical progress. 

Therefore, ethics takes on the role of regulator of science. It doesn’t hinder scientific progress but it questions its results.

In fact, the scientists’ ethical mission is complex and varies according to the context. 

Indeed, a doctor who is treating a patient hasn’t the same perspective as a biologist who is manipulating some biological samples. The latter is not working under the scrutiny of someone.

Thus, he has to do more efforts in order to ask the right questions before acting.

Consequently, we should think about the role of ethics in science.

But, first of all, when shall ethics intervene in science?

Science has always nurtured artists’ imagination. For instance, Frankenstein and Doctor Folamour embody scientists’ craziness, which gives priority to researches over human dignity. This perception reflects society’s mistrust of this kind of scientists. In this case, science loses its human values. 

In reality, there is plethora of examples of inhuman researches. We can think of the experiments made on human beings by Nazis scientists during the Second World War. They deliberately flouted human dignity.  Here, science loses its main purpose of serving the human cause and is dangerously used against human salvation.

Thus, science needs to be regulated.

Moreover, advances in research offer unprecedented opportunities for genetic manipulation. Eugenics, leitmotif of many totalitarian regimes, hasn’t only been the monopoly of the worst dictators. In Sweden, between 1941 and 1975, almost 60,000 people were forcibly sterilized mainly for eugenic reasons. [2]

Today, humans have the ability to create new living species due to the development of cloning. They granted themselves powers that civilizations always deemed to be reserved to God. As Jean Rostand said “Science has made us gods even before we deserve to be men”. Isn’t it dangerous for humans that science offers them new powers without imposing any constraint, hence, the corresponding duties?

Here is where ethics turns out to be essential to a safe scientific progress.

In addition, the fact that we are living on a limited area, as earth, raises many questions. Our living environment isn’t infinite and every damage has consequences not only on human beings, but also, on other species. Therefore, for ethical reasons, research must first question the direct or indirect impact of scientific discoveries on environment. Unfortunately, it is certainly no easy bet because awareness obviously hasn’t reached all the scientists. As a matter of fact, a lot of researches have been conducted without the slightest concern for ethics. We can think, for instance, of the inadequate safety measures that led to the Chernobyl catastrophe.

Thus science unveils its irresponsibility and its breach of ethical code.

However, one can wonder about the reasons for this situation and ask if scientists see ethics as a hindrance to science progress.

Bibliography:

1. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89thique
2. http://news.catholique.org/7008-suede-sterilisations-forcees-le-pays

HD