What are,or should be, the boundaries of science?

There is a university professor who wrote a book about the meanings of various popular sci-fi books and movies, and she says that Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is about the boundaries of science, that there are things that scientists simply should not do,and experiments that should not be performed.

Do you agree or disagree?

If you agree, then what do you think that the boundaries of science should be?

If you disagree, why?What are,or should be, the boundaries of science?
I don't see any reason to confine science to borders when the U.S. government is free to do whatever it wants with human life.



At least the mindset of science is exploration and discovery about the nature of humanity and the universe while government is just about using humanity for it's own purposes......like fighting wars nobody approves of.
These problems come up because western scientists have left the science of consciousness behind... "The science of inner light." I call it a science, becasue even though it is abstract, it is as real as your own inner light of your own consciousness.



Once light and science travel together, this kind of problem will not come up. This resource will explain the kind of light I am speaking about...It's about the science of life itself.What are,or should be, the boundaries of science?
I think Mary Shelley, who wrote Frankenstein when she was only 19, was competing with a friend, also a writer. She came up with something exciting for her time. How boring would it have been if the monster was nice.



I first said, "disagree," in answering this question. I am thinking mostly of cloning, the present area of dispute concerning the boundaries of science. Some may fear it is playing God. I think one needs a little more to say that it is crossing boundaries. So much that we have been doing for many decades can be seen as playing God. But we may have more with human cloning. If their is a chance that people could be born with defects do to this process, we aren't ready to do it.What are,or should be, the boundaries of science?
Science must never go so far as to destroy life in whatever form in the easiest and fastest of ways. Instead it should endeavour to find better and new ways to lengthen human and selected animal life-spans. Scientists should never invent chemicals, devices or systems that are so powerful that endanger human lives---the capacity of nuclear bombs that have been developing at a frightening rate since the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, is a fine example. Science has made one big mistake for mankind already; let it not err a second time, and bring about more global fear.



Nor should scientists act like a God, and try to create new species or super forms of life, that become a threat to humans. Instead they should spend their resources on more beneficial research to find better defences against cancer, AIDs, malignant viruses and other terminal illnesses. And better systems of energy to replace oil and coal which are not doing much good for Man, in the long run.
I don't know if there should be concrete boundaries for science, or if its just a matter of humans making ethical decisions based on the conditions and constraints of their time.



What book are you referring to? I need more info!
man when i was young i thought ide be riding around in my own jetson car by now.if the government and the oil conglomerants did not hold us back for the sake of putting oil proffits in there pockets and taking controll we would be over the lake some where talking skit
The only way that boundaries will be set is if we test our limits. Frankenstein was the first of his kind. It was an experiment of resurrection. After the experiment, the doctor realised his mistake.



Science can only know it's limits if it makes mistakes. To create mistake is to push vague actions. Therefore, take vague actions to understand boundaries.
I belive we all would have different opinions on that...some say the very existance of science is to much, some say there is no boundry. I think we have more than we need. But then I'm an artist, not a scientist.
This is a great question. I agree. My belief is that the Lord intends for us to use our talents - and especially when it alleviates suffering for others. We should draw the line just short of where doing something for one, is of harm to others, now or in the future. We should never allow one person to take the life of another, fetus included. We should always honor a person's right to lay down their life for another, the highest form of love.