Question

Should a scientist's findings be suppressed if they seem disturbing?
Give reasons for and against the topic...

Answer 1

Science-based medicine depends upon human experimentation. Scientists can do the most fantastic translational research in the world, starting with elegant hypotheses, tested through in vitro and biochemical experiments, after which they are tested in animals. They can understand disease mechanisms to the individual amino acid level in a protein or nucleotide in a DNA molecule. However, without human testing, they will never know if the end results of all that elegant science will actually do what it is intended to do and to make real human patients better. They will never know if the fruits of all that labor will actually cure disease. However, it is in human experimentation where the ethics of science most tend to clash with the mechanisms of science. We refer to “science-based medicine” (SBM) as “based” in science, but not science, largely because medicine can never be pure science. Science has resulted in amazing medical advances over the last century, but if there is one thing that we have learned it’s that, because clinical trials involve living, breathing, fellow human beings, what is the most scientifically rigorous trial design might not be the most ethical.

Answer 2

No, scientist tries to discover truth, factual position.

Explanation:

• No, scientist tries to discover truth, factual position.
• Their findings are based on in-depth research.
• Therefore, these should not be suppressed or ignored.
• Copernicus put forward the theory that the Earth revolves around the Sun. He refuted the belief that the Earth was the center of the universe.
• And he was right. But Galileo had to pay the price for speaking the truth with his life. Let the truth come out.