Morgan State Presents Tony Hooker's Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment Photography
The Greater Good is the name of this very powerful exhibition at the James E. Lewis Museum of Art at Morgan State University in Baltimore. Hopkins' Berman Bioethics Institute cosponsored the exhibition, which opens this Friday with a reception. Saturday, Vanessa Gamble of Tuskegee University 's bioethics program will give a keynote in a day-long symposium on Tuskegee, for which I can't find a link.
contribute a comment
Comments have been closed for this post.
comments
Tuskegee is a potent reminder that science untethered by moral and ethical parameters can turn monstrous. Perhaps this should be kept in mind by those contemporary advocates of unfettered science who claim that only scientists can decide what is moral in science.
- by Wesley J. Smith on Oct 6, 2005 at 3:01 AM | link
Here is the link:
http://www.murphyfineartscenter.org/showcase/beyond_legacy2.htm
- by Yvette on Oct 6, 2005 at 2:35 PM | link
'Contemporary advocates of unfettered science who claim that only scientists can decide what is moral in science.'
I can't think of one, so name one.
- by Sam I am on Oct 6, 2005 at 11:49 PM | link
Read my book, Consumer's Guide to a Brave New World. They are quoted at length.
- by Wesley J. Smith on Oct 7, 2005 at 12:59 AM | link
Ah, what the heck. You asked for just one, soe here's an excerpt from a letter published in Nature:
"The reactions of non-specialist observers to complex ethical problems raised by cutting-edge science such as embryonic stem cell research are no more justified or useful than their opinions about the technical difficulties yet to be overcome...Scientists must take the lead in ensuring that the progress of science is both ethical and as free from political intervention as possible, if not for no other reason than only they can do so."
I have other quotes along these same lines.
It is also raised by the growing assertion of a constitutional right to conduct scientific research.
- by Wesley J. Smith on Oct 7, 2005 at 1:50 AM | link
I suppose I ought to have set the bar higher: an unnamed letter to the editor in Nature is good enough to ...
To what? To show that there is a large or growing opinion among scientists that only they should have a say in the ethics of science?
I'll have a look at your book, but I doubt that it will raise red flags with me. 99% of the time I hear the opposite from scientists themselves: 'please, deal with the ethics of this, I can't handle it, where is this going ...' They WANT others to meddle, because they don't want the burden solely on themselves.
Too often the mad scientist image is a standard ploy to give bioethicists a job.
- by Sam I am on Oct 7, 2005 at 8:24 PM | link