'Lawyers, Scientists Urge Ethics in Biological Advances\r'

'In this news hold, the concerns of scientists toward an amoral climb to the advances of biological sciences and engineering are examined. Much of the article centers on a key none address delivered by Harvard legal philosophy School professor Einer Elhauge where the professor state of matters â€Å"The issue is that quite a little tend not to focusing on the consequences of sure forms of human re-engineering.”The professor goes on to comment that the salient strides in biological science may interpret a great number of advances in dower humanity overcome a number of diseases and afflictions, exclusively he also acknowledges that there is great emf for abuse. Examples of such(prenominal) abuse include issues such as altering the sex of a child in the womb or even a deaf family biologic eithery engineering the deafness of their offspring.Ultimately, the Elhuage’s focus is to convince the scientific community that, even though it has biological technology to alter evolution, it should use honourable standards before embarking on the proverbial â€Å"playing beau ideal” concept that Mary Shelly warned science about 250+ years ago.To a great degree, the article is accurate in terms of its presentation and call for moral and honorable consciousness. Just because science reaches the technological or biological advances of a highly evolved society does not soaked that science can now re-orchestrate what is considered morally unexceptionable in the hearts and encephalons of the population. As such, science should show the limits of ethical and moral behavior and not approach advancements with total mindlessness and amorality.Congressman Calls out tech Firms on chinaware Ethics.The bulk of the purpose of this article is to arrange the onus on American and international businesses to reckon their actions when empowering China by conducting extensive business with the nation.In the article, it is inform that Congressman Chris Smith has taken internet companies such as Yahoo, Google, Sysco Systems, etc to task for going along with China’s internet censorship program. This may not face like an entirely important issue, barely one needs to keep in mind that China is primarily a military-industrial complex one-man rule that has a horrible record for human rights impingements. As Smith points out, when American businesses work in tandem bicycle with nations with such abominable track records they enable such dictatorships and help perpetuate significant human rights violations.Furthermore, it is far-famed that journalists in China have been censured and punished and jug for exercising their free speech. Smith suggests that American businesses that house to such a scenario should be fined and sanctioned.What Smith is essentially doing here is he is compelling American companies to correct to ethical standards of behavior and that is commendable. However, these companies have limited faculty i n terms of being able to compose domestic Chinese law. Furthermore, in such a highly competitive international business environment, it is tall(prenominal) to impose ethics as defined by one nation onto another nation, no exit how noble the cause. Smith’s statements are commendable, barely it is not entirely clear if they will be successful.Ethics board fines Dow for giving state workers airplane rideAs the ennoble of the article infers, the center of the ethics controversy this article deals with is a fine levied at Dow Chemicals to the tune of $2,500.00 for prompt three state college employees to an out of state cultivation program. At the time of the issue of contention, Dow was launching a co-operative training program with the state college (Louisiana Community and good College) and provided free airline tickets to employees for meeting purposes. This, however, was a violation of state ethic laws, hence the fine.This scenario strikes one as, well, silly. For Dow to revenge the airline tickets of three state workers so all parties can hash out a co-operative imperil hardly seems like unethical behavior, although it is defined as such under state ethics laws. dapple the whole scenario comes off as much bother about nothing ( in reality, $2500 to a multi-billion dollar keep company such as Dow is basically nothing), it technically is a violation of state laws and the levied fine is effectual. However, it does not seem like any real, serious ethical violations actually took place.If anything, the situation appears more like an error as the result of an oversight as opposed to a deliberate ethical violation. Oversights, however, are not an self-justification for not following directions. In that regard, the decision against Dow was valid and the fine levied justified.BibliographyAnon. (2007, February 9) Ethics board fines Dow for giving state workers airplane ride.The Associated Press.  Retrieved February 12, 2007 fromhttp://money.aol. com/news/ articles/_a/ethics-board-fines-dow-for-giving-state/n20070209095709990003Schwankert, Steven.  (2007, February 12) Congressman Calls out Tech Firms onChina Ethics. IDG News Service, Retrieved February 12, 2007, fromhttp://www.infoworld.com//07/02/12/HNcongressmanchinaethics_1.html/article/ sourcedomain =www.dailyfreepress.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.comZerey, Ralpha. (2007, February 12) Lawyers, Scientists incite Ethics in BiologicalAdvances. The Daily Free Press. Retrieved February 12, 2007, fromhttp://media.www.dailyfreepress.com/media/ depot/paper87/news/2007/02/12/News/Lawyers.Scientists.Urge.Ethics.In.Biological.Advances-2712941.shtml?\r\n'