Ethics & Science

The following article in the New York Times talks about a Massachusetts Governor that opposes stem cell work on the basis of ethical considerations. Althought the article does point out the underlying theme of attitudes towards abortion that are mixed in with these ideas (the proponents of the bill to outlaw stem cell work also oppose abortion), there is something to the idea that ethics must figure into research agendas.

There are several reasons why ethics is often left on the fringes of the "cutting edge" of research, I think...
1. Ethics is hard to grasp without falling into dogmatic notions
2. Ethics imposes invisible boundaries
3. The principles put forward must be followed in all contexts in order for them to have the weight of validity

A lot of time, in advanced stages of research the sentiment is that we will worry about the "impacts" later, this is pure science. Except nothing is pure. Although it is impossible to predict down the road what impact a particular new theory, line of research or invention may have, it may be instructional and, ultimately, ethical, to attempt such prediction. I am not about to put forward personal attitudes towards stem cell research, simply because I do not know the context of that research and the technical details necessary to make such judgements. My thought, though, turn to HCI research that deals with various methods of surveillance and digitial technology that has been covertly helping its users build what Zook et al. (2004) aptly named "our digital shadows" that persist beyond the moment when the light is cast. The issues of disclosure, privacy and the right to be left alone have been sidestepped, or sometimes explicitly ignored as variables that add too much complexity to already difficult problems. I argue, however, that in refusing to consider these notions, we are building systems that do not consider these notions either, at their very base. Yes we can come up with bandaids and workarounds later, but if the base of the system does not consider these issues, none of the bandaids will work very well.

I think sometimes, science ignores the presence of ethics, gently side-stepping it in favor of progress under an argument that what is ethical now may become barbaric and unethical later and human notions are based far too much in the dogmatic tenets of current culture that prevent us from looking forward. On some level I agree with this argument. However, it may be good for technologists and scientists to consider what kind of world we are working towards, what are we trying to build, what kinds of outcomes are possible if we are right and if our research works and... would we be able to live with the worst of them? would the worst outcomes be a fair enough payment for the best outcomes? Who would be responsible?