This is a very complicated and convoluted problem stemming from an interdisciplinary myopathy. The screwdriver guy never touches the wrench and the wrench guy does not know how to do the hammer. In many senses this is the very reason for the extent of human advancement into the modern era. Without individualization of disciplines, many tasks would simply be too abstract for the human mind to follow, however when this myopathy extends into the multidisciplinary areas of science and understanding, problems result.
Some notable examples would be anthropology’s useful embrace of ethical relativism to determine reasons for remaining uninvolved in the functions of social groupings under scrutiny. This runs directly contrary to the philosophical disciplines of social interaction which outright reject moral relativism as a form of Nazism. This author would tend to reject this position choosing to rather identify that human moral systems remain adjustable dependent upon the circumstances and parameters of any given situation. This is also consistent with what is observed anthropologically.
Philosophical disciplines however tend to gravitate towards one specific moral ideal, a “categorical imperative” as outlined by Immanuel Kant. This moral standard is what is philosophically expected to be lived up to regardless of the circumstances in which the human being is subjected. Unfortunately, very small segments of society have actually studied this expectation at any given length and therefore, do not know this is the philosophical expectation. Furthermore, if this is truly the case, no study on the matter would be required; humanity would inherently know this as a priori. Thus the reason for this authors outright rejection of the principle preferring Nietzsche’s claim, “There are no facts, only interpretations.”
Placing this in the context of the topic, scientists should be allowed carte blanche in their experiments providing they studied multidisciplinary functions of several scientific disciplines at once. However, since the cultural myopathy exists that allows for individuals to narrowly follow a single path to fruition, many scientists do not feel it is their responsibility or obligation to examine such abstractions as moral obligation or ethics when conducting research, preferring to eave that realm to the philosophers, sociologists, and criminologists.
This leaves a glaring absence of any form of ethical foundation for the advancement of theories making it the obligation of the scientist to follow a hypothesis to its logical conclusion regardless of the consequences. After all, the consequences are some other disciplines problem not theirs This creates the very ugly proposition of advances in scientific knowledge with the absence of ethical consequences (once again, that ethical relativism philosopher’s hate rears its ugly head). Therefore, we must not allow scientists carte blanche in their conquest of knowledge, not because it is not necessary but because the training they receive insures they will mindlessly pursue the results without examining the consequence. This is an inherent fault we ourselves inadvertently developed with the compartmentalization of tasks. The screwdriver guy never touches the wrench and the wrench guy would never think of operating the hammer. It is not their job to do so
Pointing this out serves the purpose of identifying that it is not beyond the capacity of those exercising the inquiry into advancement to understand the multidisciplinary role of ethics in the circumstance however, it remains each individuals responsibility to determine what that role is. If there were one complete set of morals above and beyond the manipulation of humanity, then the possibility of consequence would be intrinsically tied to the problem however leaving the matter up for interpretation by each and every individual involved will doubtlessly introduce one, two, three, even a hundred individuals with differing points of view, all determined to be ethically sound, and all subject to interpretation by the masses. Some views would be ethically sound, some would be macabre, and all would be the endless subject of debate.
The importance of examining these debates prior to the potential consequences of action is the only barrier defining the absence of atrocities similar to those resulting from the holocaust during WWII in Nazi Germany. As a human race, no one wants to be described in terms synonymous with the results of that consequence therefore; we can never have carte blanche in science until we have mastered one supreme ethic, a categorical imperative
