[john ford (OP)]

Ethics is about personal behaviour, and personal choices.  If those choices are dictated by scientists or by scientific processes, then where does personal freedom come into it?

Hmmm.   Am I only the only way that can see the elephant in the room?

Science has no room for personal choices - yet it seems that's what scientists do - make a whole range of personal choices about where to go, what to do next, how to construct an experiement.  But I'm told choices are a 'personal' matter and therefore deemed 'outside' of science. 

And 'freedom' - freedom to do what?  Freedom from what?  The fact that scientists made choices seems to indicate freedom.  But, I can make choices and I'm not a scientist.  It seems that the scientific process dictates (lack of freedom) that those engaged in science are in no way encumbered yet many of the above posts indicate the opposite - that you, as scientists, do exercise a 'freedom' in how you exercise matters of ethics.

So I'm left with some uncomfortable conclusions.  Science cannot do many things yet it balks at those areas which impact on the scientific endeavour - like, how do we make choices.  (I would have assumed that this would be a fruitful avenue for scientic pursuit).  Science does not have the tools to deal in a constructive way with personal matters because it is concerned with 'freedom' - something which science claims is 'outside' its role.  These seem contridictory and I would have thought - bad science.

[another_someone]

Ethics is about personal behaviour, and personal choices.  If those choices are dictated by scientists or by scientific processes, then where does personal freedom come into it?

Hmmm.   Am I only the only way that can see the elephant in the room?

Science has no room for personal choices - yet it seems that's what scientists do - make a whole range of personal choices about where to go, what to do next, how to construct an experiement.  But I'm told choices are a 'personal' matter and therefore deemed 'outside' of science. 

And 'freedom' - freedom to do what?  Freedom from what?  The fact that scientists made choices seems to indicate freedom.  But, I can make choices and I'm not a scientist.  It seems that the scientific process dictates (lack of freedom) that those engaged in science are in no way encumbered yet many of the above posts indicate the opposite - that you, as scientists, do exercise a 'freedom' in how you exercise matters of ethics.

So I'm left with some uncomfortable conclusions.  Science cannot do many things yet it balks at those areas which impact on the scientific endeavour - like, how do we make choices.  (I would have assumed that this would be a fruitful avenue for scientic pursuit).  Science does not have the tools to deal in a constructive way with personal matters because it is concerned with 'freedom' - something which science claims is 'outside' its role.  These seem contridictory and I would have thought - bad science.

Sorry, but the above confuses me totally.

"It seems that the scientific process dictates (lack of freedom) that those engaged in science are in no way encumbered yet many of the above posts indicate the opposite - that you, as scientists, do exercise a 'freedom' in how you exercise matters of ethics." -

what does this mean?

Who has said that scientists don't care about ethics.  On the contrary, everyone has said that scientists do care about ethics.  The question you asked was whether science has anything to say about ethics, and the answer is that science does not dictate action, but that is not the same as saying that scientists have nothing to say about ethics.

As has been indicated above, doctors have a strict ethical code; but nobody in their right mind would suggest they could give a medical explanation of ethics.

[DoctorBeaver]

"It seems that the scientific process dictates (lack of freedom) that those engaged in science are in no way encumbered yet many of the above posts indicate the opposite - that you, as scientists, do exercise a 'freedom' in how you exercise matters of ethics."

I would not say that science "dictates" anything. True, ideally scientists would be free to do whatever experiments are necessary to further knowledge. However, as we have all said, scientists are ethical (certainly the vast majority, at least) and so place constraints on themselves.

[rhade]

Nietzsche said "the difference between the greatest and the least of men is so small."
I have to ask, who's definition of ethics is to be used? As Nietzsche explained, the ethics of the west are based on the Christian concept of good and evil. Other cultures (Islam, for example) don't use the Christian definitian. The great man considered it necessary to ditch the Christian definition and look beyond good and evil.

[BenV]

Essentially, before any research goes ahead, the scientists must seek 'ethical approval' from their institution, just as they need to perform a risk assessment.  This means that the scientists do not make ethical decisions, but merely highlight any ethical concerns.  An ethics panel at the institution make decisions as to what research can go ahead, and what needs to be taken into account to ensure the research complies with guidelines.

A 'science of ethics' would be rather difficult, as what is or isn't ethically acceptable is a subjective, rather than objective decision.  Although certain ethical issues can be codified (much like risk assesments) these codings are also subjective.

[DoctorBeaver]

I have to ask, who's definition of ethics is to be used? As Nietzsche explained, the ethics of the west are based on the Christian concept of good and evil. Other cultures (Islam, for example) don't use the Christian definitian.

Which is why I said that ethics in science must lie within the ethical framework of society - or, more accurately, within the ethical framework of the society in which that science is conducted.

[rhade]

BenV, my friend, you are saying the same thing I am, in a different way. Ethics isn't a science, which is objective; it is entirely subjective.

[BenV]

I agree.  Ethical decisions have to be approached in as scientifically a way as possible - so that all decisions are transparent and based on logical progressions, (ideally so that any group of random people, given the same info about risks and benefits, would reach the same conclusions) but there will always be a subjective element.

Sometimes, social background will mean that different groups of people would reach a different conclusion based on the same available information.  Neither group is any more wrong or right than the other.  So ethics will always be subjective.

[rhade]

Absolutely. When considering ethics, one always has to consider the mores of the society or subgroup (religion, political party, etc.) who are making the judgement. For instance, it comes as no surprise that it is the catholic church which objects to all research involving human organisms (stem cells, cloning, and so forth).
The moral mores of the west are prevailingly Christian. Some people don't see themselves that way, as they don't go to church, but if you ask people from other cultures, for instance the Japanese, they see it.
Of course, I'm a Nietzschean, so I'm completely beyond the western concept of good and evil (but not good and bad).