Hi, I am a med student and my wife is a biology researcher so I will try to give my thoughts not only from the ethical base but also from a practical scientific point of view.
Regarding ethical points:
- The population explosion threat is something I am really worried about, it started after I read the book Inferno by Dan Brown, a most read book by the way. Eventually I decided that in my opinion - humanity should advance ideas to deal with this problem, like settling on Mars and so on, in parallel to the advances that bring upon us the population explosion. there is every reason to believe that science can find solution to a problem stems in a technological advances with another technological advance.
- Regarding the decision making by parents and the alternative view of people with disabilities as, in some cases, happier and whole in their own way - I do accept the view that there are many ways, almost unlimited ways, to look at the world - this is the core of the postmodern era, but - in the end, in order to live a normal life, every individual has to decide what is the point of view he agrees with the most, and in cases when there is no way to back off - one has to act according to his beliefs even when they affect other person, his son in our case - with the belief and hope that he does the right thing for the other person in the most acceptable way.
Now - practically - my and my wife's professors do not care much about ethical observations - the academic world is like a race - every person in this world tries to get to the next finding faster than the plethora of other scientists working on the same thing, and they will do almost whatever they can to achieve that. Therefore those questions you rise are extremely important, but it should be pressed that the government, with the assistance of ethics professionals and philosophers, should contemplate this issues - draw guidelines and then force them on the scientific world.
I'd encourage you to read book 3 of CS Lewis' Space Trilogy "That Hideous Strength" as a counter to Dan Brown's book.
I would also like to think that we(the human race) have the ability to counter the Malthusian over-population question.
(emphasis mine on your quote)
I'd rather see the scientists self-police their actions and research than have guidelines forced on them by government. Who knows, in a decentralized scientific research community, one that wouldn't "depend" on government for funding, maybe that would be possible, but I don't believe that adding more regulations and laws is the ultimate answer.
You bring up important points. Unfortunately, I see technology advancing faster than the ability to keep up with it ethically.
SDG
Thanks for the tip! I will try to read them when I have some time :)
Really, if you get the time try to. The trilogy does not have to be read in order, but it is the last one that would be most pertinent to the questions raised. Good luck in you and your wife's studies.
I'm a semi-retired pharmacist and I would have loved to go into research, but I knew the ability to do hard research (research for knowledge sake) would be tough to do without doing a lot of butt-kissing.
SDG
So you know how hard it is as a med student to find time for book reading :) but I will download it to my kindle if it's available for kindle and will keep it in my to do list!
Overpopulation is a fiction created by oligarchic eugenicists. Many scholars and researchers have noted this fact for years. Deciding who lives or dies is an ethical quandary indeed but I disagree with your claim that every person should decide to act on their personal beliefs. Killing innocent life is wrong and should be understood as such if we are to survive as a species. Your description of the scientific community ignoring ethics in the name of progress, especially in matters such as this, alarms me but is not surprising. Those same aforementioned oligarchs fund such shadowy research for eugenics and to create genetically altered beings for their own sick purposes. It's already happening. So disturbing.