How Ethics Can Hold Us Back

Published in

HackerNoon.com

6 min readApr 24, 2019

Science has always been a race to the finish line.

In 1945, the United States placed first in the race to create a nuclear weapon. In 1961, the Soviet Union placed first in the race to send a man to space. In 2018, China placed first in the race to create the first genetically engineered human with CRISPR.

There are many races to come. Humanity has registered for quite a few competitions within the next several decades, including but not limited to:

These races will be won. Some scientist, company, or government will stand on the top platform of the scientific podium of innovation to wave their gold medal at the world; and there’s a shortcut to victory.

Tossing ethics aside guarantees a head start to the finish line. This means that those who disregard ethics are often set up for first place. But, if these races are won by those who neglect to consider the consequences of their scientific innovation… then everyone will lose.

East Vs. West

In 2017, two surgeons announced their plans to perform the world’s first human head transplant. Dr. Canavero from Italy, also known as “Dr. Frankenstein” was able to obtain the necessary funding to prep for this transplant with the help of China, since the US and Europe did not want any involvement in the controversial procedure.

Head transplants have been met with passionate resistance by the western scientific community. Even in the rare event of a successful procedure, unanswered questions about what constitutes a human identity have left scientists afraid to touch this topic with a ten foot pole.

Why then was Dr. Canavero able to find support from China?

Without placing China in a box… historically the country has been known to innovate first and focus on ethics later.

The case of the first genetically modified babies:

In 2018 He Jianku, a scientist in China, created the first genetically modified human babies using CRISPR Cas9 technology. Even though Jianku broke Chinese law by creating the world’s first CRISPR babies, his actions weren’t met with much resistance. Jianku was able to easily fake an ethical review in order to win this race. Despite global outrage over Jianku’s recklessness and secrecy, no public statements have indicated if he will be punished by the Chinese government for the irresponsible experiment.

In short, while the US and Europe have spent the last few decades meticulously incorporating ethical practices into gene editing, someone in China took a shortcut and won the race.

The same is true for scientists that refuse to take part in a head transplant procedure. Even with the western world turning a blind eye to this ethical nightmare, if China continues to support Dr. Canavero, the surgery is inevitable.

“Despite its growing secularism, science in the Western Hemisphere is not immune to the Judeo-Christian ethic that has shaped much of Western thought. China, on the other hand, evolved alongside numerous Eastern philosophies such as Confucianism, which holds that life begins after birth, and a militantly atheistic Communist regime. This very different spiritual trajectory no doubt gives the Beast of the East an advantage in the current race for scientific (and by extension, economic and military) dominance.” — Greg Jones

In 2018, the Chinese government announced a new AI initiative. Part of this announcement included that the country intends to lead the world in AI by the year 2030.

They plan to win the race for AI.

Ethics vs. Progress

Ethics can easily stifle innovation. Considering the unintended consequences of new technology takes a lot of time and effort. Creating ethical guidelines is almost impossible when science and technology are progressing at a rate faster than the human brain can imagine.

The vague ethical guidelines that do exist today are increasingly being seen as frustrating boxes that employees must check off to comply to some not-universally-agreed-upon ethical standard. Compliance for new regulations takes time. When ethical practices are heavily encouraged, innovation slows.

This isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

History has shown that there are clear negative impacts that accompany rapid, unethical, scientific development:

The use of pesticides in agriculture increased crop yields at the cost of ecosystems.
Smart phones and tablets have placed the world in our hands at the cost of child empathy.
Experiments on prisoners in concentration camps during WWII advanced medical research at the cost of human rights.

If these kinds of costs can be alleviated through ethical decision making, slowed progress seems to be worth the wait.

When it comes to science and tech, it is much easier to create things with ethics in mind than it is to retroactively fix the unintended consequences of rapid development. Since the aftermath of rapid progress is a burden that all of humanity bears, it’s important to ask if winning is worth the cost.

At this point it may seem like slowing technological development for ethical practices is the solution. Unfortunately, it isn’t.

Why Stifling Innovation is Bad

Scientific innovation is a tricky race to participate in. “Winning” in science and tech equates to setting a precedent for the world. It’s impossible to reverse scientific development.

In 1908, Ford Motor Company set the precedent for the modern car. In 2007, Apple set the precedent for smart phones. In 2018, Lime and Bird set the precedent for ride-share scooters.

Cars and smart phones have become an integral part of modern society. Ford and Apple created technology that has become so entrenched in our lives, it would be almost impossible to remove. As science advances, it is increasingly difficult to undo its effects on society. After Lime and Bird’s scooters took over the streets of Venice Beach, California, the only way to reign in the new tech was to create city-specific laws in an attempt to regulate their use.

Since policy moves at a snails pace in comparison to the rapid development of science, precedent-setting tech effectively writes the law for us. This means those who create things first hold the most power over the future.

This is exactly why in the global race for scientific conquest, if ethical practices that stifle innovation make us lose the race, then ethics is holding us back.

When it comes to topics like AI or genetic engineering, whoever wins the race will set a very important precedent for society. Even if countries like the United States take decades to begin using genetic engineering in the most ethical ways possible, that won’t matter if in five years a scientist in China is already selling CRISPR procedures for designer babies. The winner sets the precedent.

Who will set the precedent for AI? For ML law enforcement? Autonomous vehicles? Blockchain?

The Idealistic Solution

Simpler solutions are more likely to be correct than complex ones.
— Occam’s Razor

What if we discontinued the scientific race?

Governments, scientists, and companies could simply rip off their bibs, throw them to the ground, and walk away from the finish line. Everyone could put their egos aside and recognize that the race for rapid innovation bears no winners.

No one would need to take any shortcuts. If first place ceased to exist, the individual race would become a team sport. Everyone could begin working together to achieve scientific goals, understanding that we all win and lose together.

If only it were that simple.

Realistically, this race isn’t going to end in our lifetime. Scientific victories equate to power and no one is willing to sacrifice dominance. This dilemma doesn’t yield any simple solutions. Ethical innovation only works if there is equal participation, which is impossible to accomplish without global regulation.

For better or worse, science is moving forward. We have the ability to influence what happens next, but there are only two outcomes to scientific innovation:

We unify ethically, or we allow those who use shortcuts to place first.

We all win, or we all lose, together.