Ethics and Technology

Last December, The Sunday Times in London reported an American scientist’s research for finding fundamental mechanisms of “homosexual” sheep’s sexual orientation. The research was intended, said Dr. Charles Roselli , to determine the characteristics that make rams not “into” ewes, to further apply this mechanism for enhancing their breeding.

After the news was published, PETA and scientists across the world started criticizing the research, pointing out the likelihood of misuse of this biotechnology by choosing out gay fetus.

Actually, all of these kinds of “God play” research deserve debates and discussion, in a concern that people would use this technology to control gay child’s birth. Abortion of girls in some of Asian countries would be a good example of men’s ignorance of life ethics.

This human-ethics related research has always brought scientific dilemma in deciding the priority between ethics and technology. Compromise would be an ideal solution but, how do we know whether some technology would be against or consistent with ethics? How could we draw the line that optimizes the value of both ethics and technology? What should scientists do ahead of some valuable research as they believe, but having some possibility that may be against common ethics in the future?

Andrew Sullivan, in his column for Time magazine , properly pointed the axis of this debate, saying “Scientific truth, after all, is neither morally good nor bad. It just is.” I agree with his point that science is just factual phenomenon that the value of itself could not be judged by ethics. Rather, typical idea that assumes some "abnormality" in gays, should be judged and changed. This may be the fundamental approach on the debates of biotechnology and ethics.

Sullivan even emphasized the importance of scientific knowledge in that it may bring concern rather than hating by referring that“centuries of brutality, bigotry and murder”were caused by the ignorance of homosexuality.

“Maybe deeper scientific knowledge could even lead us away from moral dangers rather than towards them. A better understanding of foetal development, for example, might prod us to do far more to reduce the number of abortions, because we can see more intimately the humanness of the life at stake. Deeper knowledge of the emotions of animals can persuade us to alleviate cruelty towards them in farming.”