Forbidding Science: Some Beginning Reflections

Abstract

Growing powers to manipulate human bodies and minds, not merely to heal disease but to satisfy desires, control deviant behavior, and to change human nature, make urgent questions of whether and how to regulate their use, not merely to assure safety and efficacy but also to safeguard our humanity. Oversight in democratic societies rightly belongs to the polity, not merely to self-appointed experts, scientific or ethical. Yet the task of governing the uses of dangerous knowledge is daunting, and there is little evidence that we have the will or the wisdom to do it well.

Toward a Better Bioethics

“…In ''Forbidding Science: Some Beginning Reflections'', Kass (2009) grapples with both senses of the ambiguous phrase, ''forbidding science'': (1) forbidding science qua science that is morally or otherwise controversial, and (2) forbidding science qua the act of prohibiting or outlawing science or scientific activities. As the former Chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics rightly indicates, there is no necessary connection between these two senses.…”

Editors’ Overview: Forbidding Science?

“…In this context, ''forbidding'' is being applied as an active verb, the action of imposing coercive, legalistic restrictions on which science should and should not be undertaken. As Leon Kass points out in his contribution to this volume, though, ''forbidding'' could also be interpreted as an adjective, used to describe that science which is repellent or abhorred (Kass 2009). This perspective implicitly expands the focus beyond mandatory, legal restrictions on which science can be done, to also consider social and other constraints (both within the scientific community and the broader public) that work to limit some lines of scientific inquiry without relying on legal restrictions.…”

“…On this question, opinion generally varies widely (as do the contributions to this volume), but there does seem to be consensus that if such restrictions are imposed, they should be done cautiously, infrequently, and in only the worst cases. Thus, Leon Kass, who probably takes the strongest explicit position in this volume that there are questions that science should not explore, at the same time acknowledges that society should not seek to prohibit all, or even any, research that is found to be ''forbidding'' (Kass 2009). …”

“…Nick Bostrom and Anders Sandberg, in advocating a right to cognitive enhancement, focus on the potential individual and societal benefits of enhancement technologies, and perceive enhancement as a logical and largely nondelineable extension of treatment technologies (Bostrom and Sandberg 2009). Leon Kass, in contrast, while also seeing that treatment and enhancement applications are intertwined, seeks to draw a line to prevent the enhancement applications without sacrificing the treatment benefits of the same technology (Kass 2009).…”

“…Yet, Patrick Taylor reminds us that the ''softer'' alternative of self-regulatory measures, such as codes of conduct, can suffer from their own weaknesses and limitations (Taylor 2009). Even proponents of declaring some areas of scientific research out-of-bounds such as Leon Kass concede that achieving such limitations will be difficult if not infeasible (Kass 2009). Given that the alternative, giving in to the technological imperative and allowing science to pursue any line of research that can be funded, may no longer be politically or socially viable, it is clear that much more work needs to be done.…”