Taking Ownership and Responsibility of Scientific Whims

[parsley]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110101/ap_on_fe_st/us_odd_panda_cow

Someone will think it might be fun to create 24 inch tall people too. For circus business investments, of course.

Should there be some legal resonsibility for unintended consequences that goes with gene-playing? Or am I simply too old fashioned? pars

[TOM4CWB]

Parsley,

I'd bet the chance of you shrinking to 24" is REALLY small!!!

Be happy!

The world is always full of surprises... especially on long winter nights in the 'designated area'!!!

[parsley]

Are you insinuating my feet would never get that small? LOL You're right! LOL

Property rights automatically accompanying modification. You crochet the genes together, you own it. What say, Tom? Pars

[parsley]

Somebody gets the hankering to create GM plaid dogs.

Result:
1. Mother dogs won't nurse their pups when they see them
2. Other dogs try to kill plaid dogs
3. They become laughingstock
4. Other animals attack the dogs every time they see them.
6. People become outraged.

It is decided to eliminate the dogs.

So who pays for killing all the plaid dogs? Pars

[FarmRanger]

If you buy something, you’re responsible for it, unless it doesn’t perform as promised in the original contract.

[parsley]

You are responsible for buying and owning a Lexus. But what if every Lexus engine is flawed and blows up when it's -41.2?

A couple may go to a fertility clinic. But what if the triplets all have genetically modifed noses in the back of their heads?

Who is responsible?
Pars

[parsley]

I am not being 'cute', ranger.

Unintended consequences can have profound intergenerational effects, emotional effects, health effects, environmental effects, etc. that were never 'Part of the plan' because scientists never considered anything other than the quick fix 'moment' that needed to be satisfied.

Lead fillings in teeth...cheap and easy to install.

Pars

[charliep]

Just wonder why you blame scientists. I assume University and other
fundamental researchers goal is to be creative and bring forward new
ideas. As an example, the genome of many organisms including man
has been mapped - this information is being used in the plant
breeding world by those using conventional process. There is
another group who take these ideas and turn them into usefall
products (perhaps with some risk), a group that commercializes
these products and a group that utlimately uses in every day life.

You have said over time that you support R. and D. What is the
model you would suggest?

Is 9 billion people on the planet by 2050 a likely reality? Will climate
variability become more of an issue? What about changes in nature
itself including diseases like fusarium graminearium in wheat, black
leg/clubroot, etc.? U99 (a rust if I understand correctly could wipe
out world wheat production - presentations at farm tech)? Molds in
food? The world does not sit still - it is constantly changing.

[charliep]

Perhaps your questions come to the understanding and management of risk. Risk is opportunity of good decisions and pain of mistakes. There is risk to doing nothing.

[jensend]

we're all used to the idea of internal risk - how much risk you'll put yourself at by your actions. external risk is putting other people or businesses in jeopardy by your actions. what duty of care do you owe other people in picking a course of action? it's where ethics come in and i would think all good conservative people would say you have to be completely responsible for your actions.

[parsley]

I'll do one at a time charliep, because I have company coming for lunch and because agstar demands I wean from verbosity.

Scietists have a duty of care because they are the specialists. Making a roto-propeller from recycled metal may be cheaper, but dangerous. It is up to him to underline that risk. Lead in crib paint.

Toyota KNEW exactly where the harm lay but thought they wouldn't get caught. ie charliep shouldn't be responsible for the factory flawed Lexus he purchased.
The courts agree. pars

[charliep]

Your examples are poor decisions in the production process and not scientific
advancement. I suspect science in both cases might have told the companies
this is a bad idea.

the discussion will likely come to what type of processes encourage R. and D.
on the one hand and protect societal good on the other. What level of
government regulation? What cost of meeting regulatory requirements?
Legal remedies? Cost to manage this? International agreements on approval
processes and tolerances.

[parsley]

Scientific information used in the processes should be available for and subject to inspection.

Knowingly hiding information or keeping quiet is professionally wrong.

It's why policy makers must understand and consider the issue of moral ethics; maybe we should back up a bit?

Scientists who close their eyes are of no use to safety/right and wrong are they? Pars