How can you or your society decide ethically which knowledge should or should not be pursued?

	The quest for knowledge and the understanding of their surrounding environment
is central to human existence itself. As history as well as the behavioral sciences will reveal, man by his very nature is a very curious being. This innate curiosity had driven man to question his own surroundings and the reasons behind things. It is through experimentation that man is able to attain many answers to the questions. As time progressed, a general method was established as a guideline for experimentation. The scientific method did serve and continues to serve as such a guide for scientists and researches around the world. Interestingly, such experimentation was standardized by the scientific method on a structural level; however, guidelines for ethical experimentation had not been established prior to World War II.
	During World War II, Nazi scientists performed experiments, which were later deemed by many individuals and societies as being unethical. Such experimentation included what was essentially the torture of subjects without their willing consent. Subjects were tested to determine the temperature of death in humans when exposed to cold as well as the best method to resuscitate such victims. German high command deemed these experiments necessary in order to prepare the troops for the cold temperatures that they would inevitably face on the Eastern Front. A plethora of other experiments were also conducted on twins and in high altitudes to attain knowledge for the German people. Such experimentation raises the question, how can a society determine what an ethical experiment is? Should researchers be allowed to conduct experiments for the greater good of man, despite the negative immediate consequences? Furthermore, should mankind be allowed to use results and data from experiments that were conducted unethically? Experiments such as this were generally viewed as appalling after the war, and accordingly, guidelines for ethical conduct of experiments were established at Nuremberg. The following are excerpts from the guidelines: 
The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.

	Here, an international panel of individuals is essentially imposing their moral code with regards to experimentation upon the rest of the world. It is increasingly important to understand that these guidelines are merely that, guidelines. It is ultimately up to a group or society to decide whether or not such guideline are to be adhered to or enforced in any manner. Societies each tend to have a set of moral guidelines which differ from those of another society. It is very often that such morals or ethics stem from the prominent religion of that society. For example, it is very easy to see that many of the basic laws of the United States of America find their basis in the Bible and principals of Christianity; moreover, in several middle eastern countries, the common law is based heavily on Islamic law.  By merely being an inhabitant of a given country, one is essentially agreeing to abide by the moral codes of the land, whether they be written or unwritten. 
	It is important to note that such "unethical" experimentation does not necessarily involve the killing of human beings. Experimentation by researchers in the United States of America conducted experiments which would, by today's standards, be considered unethical. In one scenario, test subjects were brought in under the rouse that they would be administering shock therapy to an individual they could not see on the other side of a wall. For every wrong answer   the test subjects would administer an electric shock to the person on the other side of the wall; moreover, the voltage would increase by certain intervals for every incorrect answer the patient delivered. The test subjects were also informed by the person on the other side of the wall that the shocks were affecting his heart, because he had history of a bad heart condition.  Despite hearing the audible suffering and subsequent silence of the victim at the higher voltage shock levels the test subjects were instructed to continue administering shock therapy. The goal of this experiment was to determine the response of individuals to authority. While the intentions and the conclusions of the experiment were good, the method in which the data was obtained is ethically questionable.  In another experiment designed to test the same basic principals, College students were recruited to serve as both prisoners and security guards in an actual jail complex. Over time, those placed in positions of security guards became mentally and physically abusive to the inmates. 
	While it is evident that the morality of such experiments is questionable, the fact remains that the data that the experiments produced revealed much about the human psyche. From these experiments, researchers confirmed that humans tend to listen to authority, despite any violations of their own moral code. It is in this sense that figures of authority in a society can determine what is right and what is wrong, ultimately imposing such views on other members of society. Moreover, it is not only those in authority who can decide what types of experimentation are wrong; the collective society as a whole also at times shoulders the burden of being moral police. When news of the German experiments on human beings spread to the shores of other countries, many were outraged. Why? The reason lies in the underlying moral code of the societies in which people lived. Such experiments not only violated the personal rights of individuals under experimentation, but, in the eyes of those who judged the experiments, violated an underlying moral code. Causing harm to another human being without just cause is almost always a violation of such a moral code.  It is when experiments, or any action for that matter, are in direct contradiction with a written or unwritten moral code that people or societies tend to deem them Aunethical@.  Thus, societies or individuals have the power to determine whether or not the method for pursuit of knowledge is acceptable.
	A similar, more current debate is raging with the medical use of stem cells. Many proponents of stem cell use would make the argument that their use has the potential to cure debilitating and deadly diseases such as cancer as well as other genetic diseases which were once thought incurable. Opponents assert that since stem cells are harvested from a fertilized human embryo that such experiments are essentially unethical, despite their positive effects. It is in this type of experimentation that the clear distinction between right and wrong becomes a bit blurry. Unlike the previously mentioned experiments, stem cell research does not seem to harm any individual; however, this depends on the definition of the term Aindividual@. Stem cells, which are essentially cells that come from a fertilized human embryo have been deemed by many as living organisms. Thus, any research involving such cells is, to these groups, unethical. Despite the opposition from many religious and political groups, the United States government has placed few restrictions on stem cell research. I this scenario, it is the will of the few that decided for the majority. 
	Ultimately, it is the responsibility a society and the individuals that compose it to determine whether or not it is ethical to pursue knowledge. Society dictates to its members the guidelines for proper pursuit of knowledge based on a written or otherwise collective underlying set of morals.  It is when experimentation is in direct violation or conflict with the moral code that society has the right to say that such knowledge should not and cannot be pursued.
 Word Count: 1372