New technologies. New advances in medicine. We hear about a new drug to cure this disease, a protein that has been discovered, a new technology that will improve that process. But, what does it really mean? Are we all understanding the same thing? Who controls what is being researched or how should human enhancement, genetic testing, etc be used?

All of these questions have no definite answer, but the different points of view of a panel on the topic today gave me a pretty good idea of how differently humans can think about one same issue. The one thing the panel really agreed on was that it has be to “ethical”. Nick Bostrom, Director of the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford, gave excellent examples of how humans have reacted negatively to advances in medicine throughout history, for example anesthesia (something that I take for granted, how could I go to the dentist without it?). How can science and society interphase? According to Nick, through public understanding (when scientists explain to the general public how things work, in my case, it could be the equivalent to learning a foreign language in 24 hours), public engagements where people would have the chance to ask questions (sounds better) and bringing the public in an earlier stage of the research process.

When asked about why people resist to technological and scientific change, he commented that before, people were born, lived and died without really experiencing these changes during their lifetime. About 300 to 400 years ago, changes began to happen, so people have not “evolved” biologically to resist change, it’s psychological. It takes time for people to differentiate between good and bad ideas. Well, that leaves me thinking: how do we all agree what is bad and what is good? Where do we draw the line?

Posted by Margit - October 11, 2007
filled in Session Focus |