SHOULD EVERYTHING BE ALLOWED IN THE NAME OF SCIENCE? FOR EXAMPLE EXPERIMENTS WITH ANIMALS.....And answer the following questions of this text,...
SHOULD EVERYTHING BE ALLOWED IN THE NAME OF SCIENCE?
FOR EXAMPLE EXPERIMENTS WITH ANIMALS.....
And answer the following questions of this text,
Man-made eruptions – “Plan B” in the battle for the planet: Text is here: http://www.odac-info.org/node/8575 and then click Read full article
1. Definition for geo-engineering?
2. What are 2 categories in geo-engineering can be divided into?
3. 3 examples for geo-engineering?
4. What is Plan B and Plan A?
5. Why has geo-engineering become an option that has to be taken seriously?
6. What is the biggest danger of geo-engineering?
everything in own words
I would say that the answer to this depends on what you mean by "everything." I will discuss this with regard to the example of experiments with animals.
In my opinion, almost any kind of animal testing that will help human beings should be allowed. But the word "almost" is important here. I believe there are two restrictions that should apply:
- There should be no other good way to test the thing in question. Animal testing should be done when it is necessary, not just because it is convenient.
- The benefit to human beings should be substantial. I have no problem with testing drugs on animals if those drugs might cure diseases. I do have a problem with testing cosmetics on animals because cosmetics are not necessary for human beings.
So, to me, scientists should be allowed to do anything that is necessary to find new things that might bring a significant benefit to people.
There is an undeniable need and advantage to science testing on animals. I think the notion of "Everything being allowed in the name of science" lends me to go against the nature of the statement. Any type of encompassing statement such as this has the potential to allow for abusive behavior. In terms of animal testing, it would certainly allow the line between humane and inhumane treatment of animals to be blurred. This is a state of affairs that I would be against. In that vein, I would have to feel that the statement could not be embraced in all openness. I think that the scientific community has a firm grasp of what constitutes acceptable treatment of animals, but the idea of "allowing everything" is a bit on the unsettling side.
To allow everything in name of science or in name of anything else will be to allow everything without any examination or logic. This is clearly against the methods and principles of science. Scientific progress is based on questioning and defying existing beliefs and conclusions, including the theories and views of imminent scientists of past. By refusing to question the and validity of existing scientific knowledge and beliefs, and with that the need for specific actions and programs to promote progress of science, we will be converting science in to something very much like a religious cult, that accepts blindly, without questioning, anything claimed to be a scientific fact and in the interest of scientific progress.
Also, there is no justification in treating science an end in it self. Science and scientific progress needs to be justified in terms of the benefits it gives to people - including protection of the environment and the natural resources available to people.
In Geoengineering earth's climte is manupulated to counteract the effects of global warming from greenhouse gas emissionsThe National Academy of Science defined geoengineering as "options that would involve large-scale engineering of our environment in order to combat or counteract the effects of changes in atmospheric chemistry."
There may be unintended climatic consequences, such as changes to the hydrological cycle including floods, caused by the geoengineering techniques. Ozone depletion is a risk of some geoengineering techniques.