Should science be subject to ethical consideration?

[Ecton]

I think there needs to be such a consideration, and it needs to be deeper in the minds of scientists.
I can't tell you how many times I had to navigate around research grants with awful purposes.
There are some people in my field, when it comes to getting funding or attaining a novel result, who could care less about humans or their petty 'limbs' and 'children'. And those people tend to rise rather quickly and are rewarded for their careless application.

In general, they are also quite terrible at foreseeing the potential uses of their technology. I gave several talks about privacy and safety that got a few professors riled up. They didn't think such concerns were "relevant". They put a great deal of trust in people they cannot understand, and will eagerly give them power in exchange for recognition.

 

[NeverAmI]

I think it is less of a consideration about whether to hold science to ethical consideratios, but rather which?

The people that pursue scientific studies that are considered ethically wrong by many is still seen as ethically acceptable by someone. There is a huge difference in ethical considerations.

Think about ownership of life. If you are declared to own a life, typically that of a lesser species, then is that ownership permanant until you decide otherwise? Or are there actions that can overrule your ownership?

With ethical concerns, they involve the principle that every life is subject to rights beyond being owned and simply existing. The dog, cat, mouse, cow have rights that they should not be needlessly harmed by their owner.

Then comes the question of what value do we assign to certain harms? Some ethically consider advancement of technology as more valuable than the rights of an animal.

Of course, the justification is also important, why is something needing to be done in the first place?

Of course, you can always count on large companies to take the exploitation as far as they possibly can and imo that is a major concern.