When is Science Going "Too Far"?

Recently, I stumbled across an article about how a scientist is trying to use stem cells to revive a dead brain. And honestly, even though I thought it would be something interesting and cool to think about doing, it kind of terrifies me in a way because it seems that some humans are attempting to play God (or the fact that they'll essentially be creating a zombie).

So what do you think? Is there a point in science in which people can go "too far"?

SOURCE: http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/reanima-project-brains/

 

When it becomes a threat to humanity itself. We can argue about the exact specifics, but as a general rule, that's my "has science gone too far" criteria.
Yes I have thought about this.
On the subject of the example cited, that might be dangerous in so far as it can strain our healthcare system already facing bad demographic trends. However, if it only works on brains, we don't have much to worry about as it would be very specific to cause of death. There's no method to keep a brain alive if the body is dead anyways. So if you get into a terrible car accident, you're dead anyways. Heart failure and you don't immediately restore blood flow (to keep the heart from dying), you're dead. Cancer, won't stop it, etc etc.

 

Well, can't most parts of the body, organs, muscles, tissue, etc., be replaced?

It may sound a bit Frankenstein-ish, but thinking like that it may be possible

 

Science can never go too far!~!~
Like, nowadays we have ethical guidelines to stop any reputable scientist from doing anything that is deemed immoral.
Back in the day, however, it wasn't as strict. You had some guy injecting his son with cowpox, which showed us that we can get immunity from serious diseases. Also, this series of experiments that even I am conflicted on. The results they gave were so significant to our knowledge today, but the methods were painful. Like, honestly, prepare yourself for this pain...

 

With transplants. People have been able to replicate body parts using stem cells, but to the best of my knowledge, they haven't been able to make them functional due to secondary tissues present in the organs that need to be present. By that I mean they make a heart, but it's really just a bunch of heart muscle cells shaped like a heart with little nerves or connective tissue. Don't get me wrong, that's amazing but there's a reason why you can't waltz down to your local hospital and get a new heart. It's like a car motor without a car. Without the other parts, it doesn't do what you want it to, though it's an important first step.
Also still doesn't solve stuff like cancer which will occur if given enough time. And the age where we can build robots that sustain our brains with nutrients and oxygen is super far off, so even if they could cure brain death, lifespans would still top out about 150 tops. The walls to medicinal immortality still have quite a few layers in them.
On the subject of scientific trials, I think the current system prevents large overreach, and most studies that could be conducted on humans are testable with animals. Tiered studies are useful and don't needlessly waste human life.

 

As a Transhumanist, as long as all possible precautions are taken and as long as any subjects are willing i say there is no limit.

 

But what is considered immoral?!!
Nowadays sadly, immorality is pretty much what any one person considers immoral!
Example: I , as a devout Catholic, believe that stem cell research is totally permissible, but only in the case of adults. I believe that embryonic stem cell research is abhorrent and evil, because it pretty much kills the embryo. And by the way, I am not saying this because i am a poor, unfortunate, brainwashed Christian. I believe it!!!

 

Well, yeah, it's based on a majority of peoples' opinions, plus some common sense. Basically, it's all about minimising harm as much as possible. Eg, can this test be performed without killing the animal? Can it be performed on fewer animals? Can it be performed on a lower form of life? Does it need to be performed on something living to begin with?

In regards to embryos and such, I'm okay with them being used. They're something that take months and months to become something that finally begins to have a chance of survival, let alone any sort of sentient thought.
Source: Love of science. And negative-utilitarianist morality.

 

When the brain stops working after some sort of incident, the subject enters a state called "brain death", I think. He's not really dead because his heart is still beating, but he has to stay plugged on machines to stay alive. I think trying to revive a dead brain isn't impossible with technology nowadays, but the person wouldn't be completely normal, since the brain lost a lot of its capacities.
I don't know if people would like to live as 'zombies' and depend on their parents or society for the rest of their lives. But since you can't really ask them for their opinion, you ask the family. But in the end, it's life we're talking about, and you can't play with life. So in this particular case, I think science goes a little too far.

 

We know that with people in a coma, the brain still continues to function in most cases and that if they're hooked up to life support, it's usually a problem with another organ and not the brain. So how do we determine when a brain has truly died? I would imagine that the brain might be able to function so long as it still receives blood. I would also imagine it would be like a hard drive; all traces of memories and basic functions that we all take for granted would be missing/corrupted/inaccessible, depending on the severity of the incident and if the brain was badly damaged. You would pretty have to teach the person how to live again, including the basics; Essentially, you would be re-building the "OS" of life for the person to function without machinery again. I have my doubts of the brain being truly dead if there is still blood flowing to/from it. However, if the brain loses oxygen (even from blood flow), I think it was reported/estimated to have a 4 minute window from the point oxygen is depleted before the brain suffocates and loses all function and completely dies. Not sure if that report/estimation has been updated since 10+ years or not. This is all presuming the brain is still physically intact of course, and not just a big mess on the ground.

 

If we operate by the rules that God exists, then, yes, science can go too far. I doubt the first post of this thread is stating something that could be considered to be in God's domain, since it is just a sort of "jump start." After all, ever heard of CPR? Or defibrillators?

Going too far would be accessing Heaven or Hell, creating spirits and creating something from nothing.

If we operate by the rules that God does not exist, then, no,science cannot go too far. Now, humanity could screw up and advance in a way that will make them become the Strogg or Borg, but hey, it's survival of the fittest.

 

Creating life through the means of science, rather than natural laws. Cloning would likely fall into God's domain. Proving or disproving the existance of God would be going to far. There is a reason why it's called faith. Not sure about Norse religion (and I'm reluctant to say "Mythology," who am I to question whether the gods the Norse worshiped were real or not), but there may not be a boundary of having faith that the god Odin may or may not exist. For all we know, they could have been a powerful race (Marvel's Thor anyone?), much like the Greek and Roman gods could have been. I'm not well versed in many religious practices, but I would think that a polytheistic religion might be based on an advanced civilization if there were more than one powerful god and the then lack of understanding of that advanced technology. You see many Sci-Fi movies, anime, TV series, etc based on these religions that put it in a modern understanding based on our own interpretations of what the ancestors believed to be "divine," "miracles," or "magical" many with proven methods. What's been hard to re-interpret was how some of these miracles happened, such as immediate cures to ailments within seconds. Instant healing is still in the realm of fiction for science. Turning water into wine within seconds is still hard to explain scientifically. Resurrections after 3 days.

The scientific side of me wants to know how these miracles were performed. But the other side of me doesn't want to know, as it could mean trespassing on God's domain. We may not be ready to handle the truth behind the miracles, and it may not be discovered until we are ready to learn the in-depth truth behind it. We are a very ignorant and very egotistical race. We can't even handle power without being corrupted by it.

 

I'm mad because scientists still haven't figured out how to produce Gundams. I will forgive scientists for this fault if I can pilot the first one!

On a serious note for me, my opinion on science and religion changes based on who I'm talking to. I might of used to have an opinion of my own but after having friends and family both fight one another on this topic I've grown so accustomed to agreeing with whoever I am with.It's kind of sad. I have no opinion at all I just focus on appeasing people.

It's fine to have an opinion but don't argue with someone so much that they forget their own ideas. One thing I'm very against is making young children decide too early. I've seen parents on both sides make their kids into miniature versions of themselves. When kids says things like "you're going to go to hell" or "there is no god, you're stupid" to a classmate and if you ask them why they said that to a classmate they respond with my daddy/mommy says that, it is not okay with me. I understand wanting what's best for your child but when they clearly do not understand the picture you are painting it's not time for Monet to be born yet.

*gets off stage*

 

I know this is old but oh well. I though science was suppose to push the limits. Now I'm not going to support testing on a population with out consent but lets say I have an illness that cant be cured at the moment but this group of scientists might have found a cure and they want to test it on a human. Now there is a chance that the cure will fail a chance that the cure can kill me and there is a chance that the cure will cure me. Why can't I volunteer as a test subject. As long as all the risks are outlined and I know what I'm getting myself into why shouldn't the test happen?

 

if you wanna be technical they can already produce a gundam its just that the weight cant be accommodated yet and then the beam weapons and the engine are so far impossible. not to mention the way to move a giant armored suit from a single place and keep the thing able to travel in space and still move at the velocity it does.

i dont hate the way you think. for example if you were around some annoying people who like anime would you tell them your opinion and hear there's and if they are different then argue? no, or at least i would listen to them slightly agree with some points then not express my opinion. might be a little different from you since my tactic is used so i dont have to waste my energy on a pointless topic.

i prefer having a kid choose their religion in the future rather than forcing them to places like church as children.

 

science goes to far when the moment hits tat we have gone too far, or at least thats what i believe

 

I'm not sure what side of the fence I'm on here. At times we achieve our greatest breakthroughs in Science when we push the very boundaries to the absolute breaking point. It's true some cases this yields to disastrous results, but as a true Scientist I feel you need to have the character to elevate yourself and go beyond the threshold even if that results in a unsatisfactory outcome.

Now the other side of the fence I'm on is the side that screams haven't we come far enough? Look at all the marvels of ingenuity we already have. Shouldn't we be satisfied with this and play it safe?

As far as going to far I think it falls to the acquisitions people associate or attach certain field of Science to. For instance inserting nanobots into a person's bloodstream to fight off infectious virus's and diseases. Now that sounds great and dandy, but people can easily theorize whats to keep these nanobots in check. They could begin to attack healthy cells of the host or self-destruct or any number of ill mannered things. This is just a example I put together to try to get my viewpoint across. In my own personal opinion there isn't a point in which you can take things to far, unless of course your aiming for only a destructive purpose such as bombs & weapons.

 

You go too far when you invite this guy over: