Hey Guys,
I found this interesting article on the web:
In this article, Dr. David Nicholas works with chemicals to figure out how the brain works. Using these results, Dr. Nicholas then publishes his work to science journals in the hopes that others can use his research to find cures for brain diseases such as depression. However, Dr. Nicholas has a unique problem that raises ethical questions involving public display of research results. Some of his chemical concoctions are being used on the street to make illegal drugs. Dr. Nicholas himself says he knows five of his chemicals have turned into illegal drugs that have killed some of the drug abusers. Dr. Nicholas discusses his haunting of indirectly killing someone and raises the question of should all scientific works be published for all to see? Dr. Roland Griffiths believes that the way we advance as a scientific community is through the free exchange of findings and ideas. However, Dr. Art Caplan believes that there are certain circumstances in which research should not be published to protect society from using it in the wrong way.
I talked this over with Brennan, and he brought up another good point about this problem: If a researcher does not publish his work, he is at a severe disadvantage when it comes to gaining grant money. So I leave you with a question, “Should all scientific findings be published for all to see?” Leave your comments on about the question, the article, or alternatives you can think of below. Thanks!
This is an interesting scenario that I have never though about before. To gain grant money, you almost have to publish your findings. I take a fairly laid back approach when it comes to controlling substances. I believe that if someone wishes to take the risks of experimenting with drugs then that is their prerogative. However, they must live with the consequences. I still can understand the mixed feelings that this researcher is experiencing.
ReplyDeleteTy