 |
 |
On 5 Sep 2004 at 7:52, Greg Louis wrote: > If I'm off base here and PARKINSN really is about "morality" (on which > no consensus is possible) as applied to the politics regulating > scientific research, does anyone have a pointer to a list that serves > the purposes described in the quotation above? Science and morality cannot be mutually exclusive. If one divorces the two, one winds up with "mad science". There have been countless examples of this in the past. One of the problems with the rapid advancement of science in the last century or so has been this estrangement (between science and morality), and we have been fortunate thusfar that humanity has finally adapted morality to science in most areas. The development of "artificial reproduction" (starting with artificial insemination and now progressing towards cloning) has raised the bar a bit when it comes to morality, and we are in the conflicted period now. Eventually, people of good will can work out the differences and come to a compromise where science will not trump morality or vice-versa. Best, Bob Robert A. Fink, M. D., F.A.C.S., P. C. Neurological Surgery 2500 Milvia Street Suite 222 Berkeley, CA 94704-2636 USA 510-849-2555 FAX: 510-849-2557 <http://www.rafink.com/> "Ex Tristitia Virtus" Disclaimer: That which is written in my e-mail is not to be considered as "medical advice". Such advice can only be given after a formal, in-person, consultation between doctor and patient. ********************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn