Genetic engineering is a widely discussed subject all over the world. There are arguments about where it should stop and where should it expand. What are your views on this? Should genetic engineering be closely monitored or prohibited in certain scientific areas? Or are there no limits to genetic engineering?
Is it ethical or morally right to benefit financially from cultivation of stem cells? Would you choose to use stem cells if it was the only way to survive?
According to the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights (1997), “Practices which are contrary to human dignity, such as reproductive cloning of human beings, shall not be permitted…”.Do you agree with this excerpt? What is your opinion on cloning? In what ways are cloning beneficial to society?
Some say that profit is the root of all evil, however there are others that say it is religion. Although religion is more widely known to make an individual a better person, there are cases with extremist groups. Tell which you believe is true whether it be none, one or both and explain why you believe this. (@ 'con fuzzled' : Hopefully further elaborating on my question helped you understand where I was getting at.)
Oftentimes, the profit from doing something ends up being more than what the individual originally bargained for. Within many literary works, such profit ultimately result in the destruction of the individual. Discuss a real-life situation in which profit becomes a burden for a particular individual.
Cloning is undoubtedly controversial. However, it is a fact that if this new technology were used correctly, cloning would be very beneficial to society. Some people also consider cloning morally incorrect because lives are being saved and improving at the probability of the expense of a clone. Does somebody who agrees with the use of cloning to save lives have a corrupted sense of morality if cloning is also considered morally and ethically wrong?
The theme of the relation between science and profit has been debated in literature for hundreds of years. In literature, those who either sell science for profit or use profit as a driving force for their science have all met doom. Are the authors saying something? When you tangle up science with profit, is doom an invariable consequence? Is there an unbreakable link between science and profit?
Science and profit are two parallel elements that are typically portrayed to have evil or negative consequences. Despite this, are there ever cases where the profit justifies the means of the science? When does science and profit have a positive outcome?
Science and Prophet/Profit
In The Island of Dr. Moreau by H.G. Wells, a mad scientist obsesses over creating a completely new species of bestial humanoids, disrupting the balance of nature. Many scientists seek this absolute power and knowledge of God, ensuring the ability to name one’s destiny. The question then involves the powers of a prophet, who is able to communicate with the gods, holding the knowledge of the gods. Through the connection between prophet and god, the paths of destiny are revealed to the prophet. What is the impetus of mankind’s thirst for knowledge: profit or the knowledge a prophet holds?
In Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus, Frankenstein goes beyond the limits of man and creates a monster from inanimate limbs. In a way, Frankenstein himself becomes a monster. Which of the two is more inhumane, Frankenstein or his creature? Which is more justified in their actions? Could Frankenstein be blamed for the actions of his monster, since he created it in the first place? Could he still be held responsible even after he tries to confess to the magistrate, and no one believed him? Also, would you say Frankenstein was blinded by his desires for fame and profit or was he just trying to do good for mankind?