What, if any, limits should be placed on Scientific R&D (and science in general) (ethics, support)

[crystalblue]

For example

Would cloning a person provide more advantages than the social cost?

Is it worth trying to get a nuclear powered spaceship in orbit if it could get us to far parts of the solar system quickly?

What about AI?

Nanotechnology?

Gene manipulation?

and a million others...

[AxisMundi]

What social cost?

And why would the others in your list require limitations?

[crystalblue]

Originally Posted by AxisMundi

What social cost?

And why would the others in your list require limitations?

I dont think they would, but they are often hot topics that can stir emotions.

and for the social costs of cloning, there would be failures in the beginning. probably riots...

[Memphis1979]

I'm all for as much scientific advantage as we can get. I don't care about morality. If it doesn't hurt anyone, then it should be done.

[jtur88]

Who do you think ought to place limits on pure science? The Pope, again?

[Braunwyn]

Originally Posted by crystalblue

I dont think they would, but they are often hot topics that can stir emotions.

and for the social costs of cloning, there would be failures in the beginning. probably riots...

Well, as it stands, we haven't technically cloned anything. We still have to use a cell with its own mtDNA last I knew. Dolly, for example, wasn't a true clone. Cloning folk for longevity is star trek stuff; nothing we'll have to deal with for a long time to come. With that said, I would fully support an ethics committee made up of scientists to temper our research.

[moonshadow]

Limits, no.

Strict scrutinization at all points of the process by a truly impartial ethics commitee, yes.