Does the truth always need to get out?

[Stefu]

I've been thinking of making this thread for some time, but been leery, because someone would misunderstand, anyway. However, now I'm tired from a night of involuntary insomnia, so it's all right!

Anyway, let's say we have a bunch of scientists do genetic research. Let's say they find there's a small but noticeable genetic intelligence gap between blck people and white people. (Not that I'm suggesting such a gap exists, mind you. Keep in mind that this is all just a scenario.) They find that it's not explainable by cultural issues, nutrition, anything like that - they've proven it beyond doubt that it's genetic that black people, on the whole, are somewhat less smart than whites.

They know pretty well that they're the only team that's researching *just* this issue, and if they just announce that the results showed no difference whatsoever between blacks and whites, their word will be taken as the God's own truth. OTOH, if they come out with the real results of their studies, it's likely to give considerable fodder for racists everywhere - there's no knowing how far the ramifications will go.

Do you think that they should fib the results or publish them as they are?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Interesting question. No the truth doesn't always need to get out, and in this case I'd probably decline from revealing the results and just bury them.

[loinburger]

I think I've seen this same hypothetical somewhere before. Can't remember for sure, though.

:shrugs: I dunno, I s'pose that my inclination might be to fib, since the results probably won't benefit anybody (if you're genetically predisposed to being less intelligent, whateryougonnadoaboutit?) and have the potential for causing a great deal of harm. On the other hand, there's the potential that the results could spur advances in genetic research that could pinpoint the genetic roots of intelligence (or lack thereof) to everybody's benefit. In other words, Banana.

[Shi Huangdi]

I don't think results of science should ever be squelched because we don't like the results. I think it is very important we use the scientific method and go with the best data we have.

[monkspider]

Interesting question Stef.
I think both Loin/Imran and Shi make good points.
I think I will side with Loin/Imran. If some form of research is clearly to the detriment of humanity as a whole, then I would probably bury it.

[KrazyHorse]

Screw that. Submit the results.

[KrazyHorse]

And Shi's absolutely wrong. If I found a way to build a bomb that would kill everybody on the planet and was easily made out of household ingredients I'd squash it.

[Andemagne]

truth shall set you free.

[Dis]

lie and say they never did it.

they will screw their careers up by doing something like that, even if they are right. Not to mention upset the world order.

If you have noticed. You can see how political correctness has invaded the academic and scientific community.

[Dinner]

I'm a firm believer that bananas will always come out in the end.

[Shi Huangdi]

"I think I will side with Loin/Imran. If some form of research is clearly to the detriment of humanity as a whole, then I would probably bury it."

Well, I don't view the purpose of science as just something to find ways to benefit humanity. I think science should exist discover truths and laws of the universe and our world, and the persuit of the knowledge of those is a noble aim.(although there may be some extreme circumstnace such as KH's in which we may have to reconsider). Buit even looking at it from the benefit/detriment to the society outlook, I think it is more to society's detriment if we expect scientists to first consider whether or not their findings are going to benefit humanity before publishing. I think society is benefited with a disinterested pursuit of knowledge that seeks to discover the truth whether we like it or not.

[Ramo]

No. If truth significantly damages society, it's better that it be buried. As far as I can tell, there would be absolutely no societal benefits from this information. Maybe if this were a small part in a larger genetic study, but in that case, the small part could be axed. OTOH, clearly racism would increase substantially with the dissemination of this information, regardless of how small the difference were.

Buit even looking at it from the benefit/detriment to the society outlook, I think it is more to society's detriment if we expect scientists to first consider whether or not their findings are going to benefit humanity before publishing. I think society is benefited with a disinterested pursuit of knowledge that seeks to discover the truth whether we like it or not.

Science nearly always doesn't hurt society in any significant way directly, so this is pretty much a nonissue.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi

Well, I don't view the purpose of science as just something to find ways to benefit humanity. I think science should exist discover truths and laws of the universe and our world, and the persuit of the knowledge of those is a noble aim.(although there may be some extreme circumstnace such as KH's in which we may have to reconsider). Buit even looking at it from the benefit/detriment to the society outlook, I think it is more to society's detriment if we expect scientists to first consider whether or not their findings are going to benefit humanity before publishing. I think society is benefited with a disinterested pursuit of knowledge that seeks to discover the truth whether we like it or not.

You are right.

I would just add that in most real cases, we will not be able to assess the possible consequences, and at which time they will appear.

[Tingkai]

Should scientists take responsibility for what they create?

If a scientist creates a new biological weapon, is the scientist justified in saying that they're not responsible for how the weapon is used, that society will benefit from a disinterested pursuit of knowledge that seeks to discover the truth whether we like it or not.

[Richelieu]

They should burn the study and forget about it.
I wonder if this poll would have taken another turn if you had mentioned that black people were the ones favored by that gap.