I think that the pursuit of knowledge should not - and in most cases cannot - be limited. However, ethics are required in deteriming the methodology of the science, and in the application of the new knowledge.
SNG,
You are saying no knowledge is inherently "good" or "bad", it just is knowledge, the problem is in the application and method. I would go with that to a point, except, I'm trying to see how I can be neutral about say, atomic weapons and the knowledge to build them, I'm trying to see nukes as a neutral thing and I'm having a hard time with it. One could say nuclear weapons are a by product of nuclear engineering or atomic science, I'm not sure who claims credit for nukes, but its a pretty nasty by-product of that knowledge. Or let's say an engineered ebola virus with a 99% mortality rate that's airborne, again, I'm trying to see this as a neutral thing, its just knowledge but I'm having a hard time with it, or even, why in the world would a human being spend hours in a lab to create such horrors?
Basically then you are making the same arguement that pro-gun people make, knowledge doesn't kill people, people kill people. But where are the people railing against these sorts of applications of science? I don't see a bunch of Ph.d.'s in lab coats on the sidewalk protesting weapoons development and the like.
The other truism seems to be, well, if we don't do it, someone else will. Hmm, not sure I find that a real "moral" arguement for the advancement of some areas of science.
Chricton made one interesting point in his novel where he likened scientific knowledge to a gun, he said, typically you don't see a karate master out on killing sprees because it took them years of training and discipline to master their skill and therefore they were respectful of its power, where as with science you stand on the shoulders of giants, its like a loaded gun, you need no training, no discipline to wield it, you just pick it up and start shooting. As science advances you pick up what others have done and run with it, but do enough questions get asked like where is this going, what are the possible outcomes of this knowledge? Can humans be trusted with such knowledge? If there is no God, no built in conscience of divine origin, or rules handed down from above, who decides what is moral and what isn't? What measuring stick do we use? Do ends justify means?
Or, let's as you stated talk about methodology, what about animal testing? Tetra makes the point that if you believe in evolution, we are just big brained apes, does that give us the right, the moral right to do what ever we want to our evolutionary cousins that weren't as fortunate to develope such advanced cognition skills? If we are not "special" in the way christians think humans are special then what gives us the right?
People are always ranting on this board about how dangerous reglion is, well, what about the products of science? When did religion ever give its followers the ability to vaporize 100,000 people in the blink of an eye? Science/knowledge/scientists whatever label you want to use have opened up wonderful benefits to mankind in the last century, but they/it also gave us for the first time the true ability to eradicate ourselves as a species, and put that power in the hands a very small group of people. Does the good really out weigh the bad?
