成人论坛

Scientists have created the first synthetic human embryos using stem cells. The breakthrough could help research into genetic disorders, but it raises ethical questions about the creation of life without the need for eggs or sperm. While nobody is currently suggesting growing these embryos into a baby, the rapid progress has outpaced the law.

This prompts a wider question: instead of society having to play catch up with science, should we be having a more frank conversation about the moral responsibilities of science itself? Some believe that scientists need their own version of the Hippocratic Oath, a regulatory system of ethical standards, similar to doctors. Others think that will stifle creativity, enthusiasm and academic freedom.

The human drive for discovery is the engine of progress 鈥� and we have demonstrably never had it so good. But are there things we should not want to discover? Are we capable of making a conscious decision to say 鈥渘o further鈥� if the potential consequences of pursuing knowledge are both good and bad? For some, science is morally-neutral, its advancement is inevitable, and it鈥檚 down to society to set the rules about what to do with the findings of scientific research. For others, simply relying on the moral-neutrality of science could be humanity鈥檚 fatal flaw, and there should be more democratically-accountable oversight of the research. If that鈥檚 the case, where should the ethical lines be drawn? As well as the consequentialist arguments, some make the distinction between science as a means of discovering the natural world and ruling it; in religious terms, between seeking to understand God and 鈥榩laying God鈥�.

When, if ever, should we apply the brakes on science?

Producer: Dan Tierney.