Stem cell research has nothing shady about it, it would greatly enhance medical services, but people feel uncomfortable with it only because it includes living tissue. On the other hand, nanotechnologies are pushed and subventioned because it has many advantages in the industry, yet we know relatively few about the toxicity and other side effects of it.

Every innovation can be misused and manipulated, we should focus more on what actually makes sense or not. Though I agree with your first paragraph about ethics.

I've always been under the opinion that ethics and morality have no place in modern science. Sometimes we must take life to save life, and sometimes people have to be sacrificed for the greater good. The human race's attachment to individual people confounds and puzzles me. There are seven billion of us, why would a few dozen sacrificed in the name of science and progression of our race be held sacred?

And before somebody pulls out the "what if it was you" ad hominem bologna, I would be honored.

I've always been under the opinion that ethics and morality have no place in modern science. Sometimes we must take life to save life, and sometimes people have to be sacrificed for the greater good. The human race's attachment to individual people confounds and puzzles me. There are seven billion of us, why would a few dozen sacrificed in the name of science and progression of our race be held sacred?

Well, we'd probably need more than a few dozen. And can you explain how the selection process for these individuals would work? Would it be like a simple random sample, or would we perhaps use certain kinds of people (e.g. prison inmates on death row)?

Goddammit. Disregard that post. Here we go:

I've always been under the opinion that ethics and morality have no place in modern science. Sometimes we must take life to save life, and sometimes people have to be sacrificed for the greater good. The human race's attachment to individual people confounds and puzzles me. There are seven billion of us, why would a few dozen sacrificed in the name of science and progression of our race be held sacred?

Well, we'd probably need more than a few dozen. And can you explain how the selection process for these individuals would work? Would it be like a simple random sample, or would we perhaps use certain kinds of people (e.g. prison inmates on death row)?

It does. But I would choose Morales over Advancement anyday.

Well, we'd probably need more than a few dozen. And can you explain how the selection process for these individuals would work? Would it be like a simple random sample, or would we perhaps use certain kinds of people (e.g. prison inmates on death row)?

Inmates on death row have nothing to lose. So yes, they would be preferable.

Yes, ethics does hinder innovation. Which is why we've developed the A-Bomb, H-Bomb and Bio-hazardous  weapons. We have no real ethics that are strong enough to stop us.
"Thou shalt not kill"
That went well.

Yes, ethics does hinder innovation. Which is why we've developed the A-Bomb, H-Bomb and Bio-hazardous  weapons. We have no real ethics that are strong enough to stop us.
"Thou shalt not kill"
That went well.

Military has always kinda been exempt from the ethics barrier, but as soon as you turn to medicine people suddenly feel bad about it...