GRE Issue Topic 21

Sample 1:

Scientific research has always been tangled with the ethical dilemma of whether the end justifies the means. There is even an entire philosophical field called ‘normative ethical theories’ that is dedicated to examining standards for the rightness and wrongness of action and determining how an individual should act. In this case, while giving researchers a carte blanche allows science to explore uncharted territory and enables a faster research–development–production rate, it also opens the door to the horrors of unethical experimentation.

Even though studies have shown that animal research is neither necessary nor is it predictive for humans, animals still continue to be the most common subject of scientific experimentation. While the existing Animal Welfare Act offers reduced protection, removing all the restrictions on scientific research gives scientists a free pass to conduct experiments that would otherwise have been seen as animal cruelty, on the basis of inducing unnecessary pain. Furthermore, having no regulations when it comes to the species that can be used in experimentation, can lead to an increase in poaching when it comes to animals with rare properties or genetic similarities to humans. Like Thomas Edison said, “Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages.”

Unrestricted scientific research would not only impact the treatment of animals but also how human experimentation is conducted. The history books are fraught with examples of experiments that were often performed illegally, without the knowledge, consent, or informed consent of the test subjects. In the US for instance, the Cold War era brought about numerous psychological experiments for testing effective torture and interrogation techniques. There is even the famous case of the Holmesburg prison in Pennsylvania, where in the 60’s and 70’s, chemical experiments were performed on the prisoners who were injected with dioxin, a highly toxic compound. Perhaps the most telling and horrific example is that of the Nazi human experiments, from genetics to vivisections, poison studies and transplantation without anesthesia. What particularly draws attention to this case is not just the extent of human suffering, but also the justification used for the experiments: at the trial, several of the doctors argued in their defense that there was no international law regarding medical experimentation. This raises the question of how to judge abuses in regard to scientific experimentation without a body of law that governs the scientific practices.

Another issue also presents itself – no research restrictions mean no regulation when it comes to testing. Take the example of the pharmaceutical industry – on the one hand, experimental treatments can find their way on the market much faster – on the other, pharmaceutical companies run the risk of becoming a business where profit supersedes safety. Current regulations require years of trials before drugs can be released for production – without them, companies can cut corners and push products on the market that can have serious untested side effects. Without government regulations, taking punitive action against companies that promote dangerous drugs to the market becomes difficult if not impossible, especially since, according to the law, they would not be committing any crimes.

Then there is the question of how to handle dangerous scientific research (viruses, chemical weapons etc.). Having no restrictions means people who are insufficiently prepared or have destructive agendas can get involved in potentially dangerous experiments. Researching subjects that would be better left alone and dealing with the consequences of pushing the boundaries of science are prominent themes of science fiction. Most post–apocalyptic scenarios of both books and movies come about from scientific experimentation – creating dangerous viruses that escape containment, like in The Stand, or opening up inter–dimensional portals to worlds of horror in Stephen Kings’ The Mist.

Ultimately, no matter how seductive is the promise of freedom of research, rules and regulations has to be set in place to ensure that in the quest for knowledge we don’t end sacrificing our own humanity. Existing restrictions have evolved based on our previous experiences with the potential horrors of unsanctioned experimentation, and they have been set in place to protect us – from ourselves.

Sample 1:

We have all heard, “Science is a necessary evil.” Why was this saying coined? The reason is evident as all research work in science has two aspects. The results of scientific research can be used both for constructive purposes as well as for destructive purposes. The probability of the result of a scientific research being misused assumes greater importance when the research is being carried out by private companies and organizations. Therefore, it is imperative that the government puts some form of restrictions on scientific research and development.

Research work in the field of nuclear science has always been a controversial issue. The energy produced by nuclear reactions can be tapped for constructive purposes like generation of power. At the same time, this nuclear energy can also be utilized for developing weapons for mass destruction. If a private company carries out research for fabricating nuclear weapons, then it is bound to make a lot of profit by selling these weapons to revolutionary outfits and other countries. This would lead to a volatile situation wherein the power to cause destruction on a large scale would be available with numerous organizations. Is this acceptable? We all know the aftermath of the atomic explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Can we afford to let it happen again? It would be worse if it happens at the hands of a terrorist outfit. The memory of the terror attack on the World Trade Center towers in New York is still fresh in our minds. The widespread destruction as the result of a probable terror attack based on nuclear weapons confirms the fact that there is a requirement of restricting the scientific research and development of nuclear energy.

One cannot refute the fact that the greatest contributions to the progress of mankind have been made by scientists who carried out scientific research on their own without having to seek permission from their respective governments. However, the scenario today is entirely different from what existed centuries ago. In the present times, the quest to earn huge amounts of money and fame has reached alarming proportions. People are willing to go to all possible extents to make their lives more comfortable. Surgeons have carried out research work and developed compounds like botox that can wipe years off your face by a couple of injections. This may be useful for people who are associated with the glamour world and who earn their livelihood because of the youthful appeal of their faces. However, what about the common people who are now getting addicted to annual botox administrations? Won’t these have side-effects? For how long can one conquer age? If one does intend to remain youthful all his life, then is mutating the genes of human embryos justified?

Research is already underway for cloning animals, but there is widespread speculation about the results of similar experiments on humans. Is it warranted to have a baby that is the clone of a popular movie star or a clone of his own brother or sister? What would be the result if such a technology falls into the wrong hands? People can use this for creating clones that will carry out crimes by impersonations. All this will be possible if the research work on human DNA is allowed to be carried out without any restrictions. At the same time, one cannot deny the fact that extensive research on human DNA has led to the emergence of the stem cell technology that can cure you from terminal diseases later on in life.

In view of the above, it is evident that putting stringent regulations on scientific research work would not be a wise decision. Nevertheless, there should be some restrictions applied by the government on all forms of scientific research to ensure that the technology being developed will be used for the betterment of mankind.