Jeff Goldblum’s impactful performance in the 1993 film Jurassic Park introduced a memorable line that continues to resonate today: “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn’t stop to think if they should.” This quote encapsulates a critical perspective on the ethical considerations surrounding scientific advancements.
The distinction between what scientists can achieve versus what they should pursue is crucial in evaluating the potential risks and benefits of their research. Recently, there has been a notable cautionary stance from researchers regarding the creation of “mirror life” – organisms with molecules that are oppositely oriented to those found on Earth, raising concerns about their potential to disrupt natural ecosystems.
The creation of mirror life has the potential to wreak havoc through the biosphere.
Creating mirror life fails to meet the “should” criteria, as its necessity is questionable. However, more complex decisions arise in other contexts, such as gain-of-function research. This controversial practice involves enhancing the capabilities of organisms, often pathogens, which carries both risks and potential benefits. For instance, modifying a flu virus to better infect humans can pose significant dangers while also offering insights that might help prevent future pandemics.
The debate surrounding gain-of-function research has intensified, especially amidst unfounded claims linking it to the origins of SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19. While some advocate for an outright ban on such research, it’s essential to differentiate between “could” and “should,” reinforcing the need for careful consideration in the scientific community.
Topics:
