|
A while ago I took a very interesting class called "Science, Technology and Society" for a poli-sci credit. Basically we looked into a wide range of issues where science meets politics, looked at an overview of the issue, got into the nuts and bolts of the science, then debated the politics. Some issues were not very compelling, and since then a lot of the issues we discussed have worked themselves out. A few more have come to the front again and I'd like to see what the forum thinks, plus add a few of my personal favorites.
Certain members of the forum have been been a little more on the ball than usual lately, so this could be good. It's also such a wide topic it'd be easy enough to switch gears if/when we get sick of a particular issue. So let's go.
1-What, if any, role should the government have in funding scientific research? Can the private sector be as effective,and if the government is involved, what are proper things to research? Can/do the benefits outweigh the costs? This has been a big issue with budget cuts, especially cuts to the space program. The president has been pretty tough on saying the government has a necessary role in R&D, but the space program has lost the Ares program and our lift capacity is becoming privatized.
2- To what extent should we use technology to augment human life? Stem cells (embryonic or otherwise) and other technology are giving us the potential to grow new bio-identical organs and tissues, we could potentially significantly extend healthy human life. Nanobots could boost our immune systems and do a variety of other helpful things. On the darker side, genetic testing could lead have eugenic fallout. Congress has moved to disallow genetic testing to be used by health insurers to disqualify applicants who don't yet present genetic diseases, a lot of people are still freaking out. Potentially I could see genetic counseling being required like blood tests(in some states) for marriages for a variety of diseases, the military is looking into using it to weed out potential recruits who might be more prone to PTSD. I'm sure that when the technology becomes available, it would end up being required for a gun license to make sure someone who has the genetic potential for say, schizophrenia is restricted from firearms possession, or at least wold be in states that already have strong gun laws. Would you want to know your cancer or other health risks if you could?
Some of these things are already becoming a reality, I'm sure they will only get cheaper and more accessible. Quite a few of my more affluent kids at the summer camp I work at who have shorter parents get HGH injections since taller people tend to be more successful and the parents can afford the injections. They wouldn't otherwise be midgets, but probably short. The results in some cases are 14 year olds who are 6' 3" and 225lbs of muscle with still undeveloped frontal lobes and corresponding judgement skills. Should the free market decide who gets upgraded intelligence, height, and strength?
Pick a point for discussion, or throw out your own example.
|