>>16151111
>discussions about ethics are hijacked for self-serving and political purposes.
Suppose I show up to your discussion and take a negative position (if you need a concrete example, imagine the discussion is about approving an animal experiment proposed by OP, and I'm advocating rejection on grounds of animal rights). How will you decide if I deserve a seat on the opposite side of the table, or should be forcibly expelled on grounds of attempted hijacking "for self-serving and political purposes"?
I don't think the dividing line is as clear-cut as you seem to be suggesting, and this is especially consequential as it is effectively a call to censor "unconducive" viewpoints.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/sci/

Thread:

I hate the constant lecturing about morality and ethics in stem. Why should I have to have my experiments approved by some council of roasties to say…