As the human race as progressed, so has our quest for knowledge. We have developed a thirst for a better understanding of why we are here, and why things happen. We have developed to a point where it is perfectly normal to want to know, not only more about our own planet, but to know about other galaxies and far beyond.
But where does this stop? Should it stop?
Are there some areas of research that could possibly have a detrimental effect upon society?
What we as psychologists study can sometimes be deemed socially sensitive topics, such as sexuality, race and gender. Some would go as far as to say that to mess around with somethings, would be ‘playing God’.
Hands up those of you who’ve seen the film Limitless? This film kinda explores this idea. A pill is created which allows you to access all of your ‘brain power’. As you can imagine the next hour and a half is followed by Bradley Cooper running around New York, trying to figure out what the heck to do with this incredibly cool power (it definitely does not involve pulling beautiful women and winning a crazy amount of money) and of course things go a bit pear shaped.
On a more serious note though…
In an enthusiastic devotion to learn more about the human thought process and behavior, it is clear from a modern day perceptive that many early psychologists were unethical in their quest for knowledge, leading to some major violations of ethics codes and standards.
One experiment which stands out in my mind is one carried out by the world renowned psychologist Dr John Money.
Money developed the theory of gender neutrality. He believed that what he called, our ‘gender identity’ (being what makes us feel, think and behave has males or females) is not determined at birth.
In 1965 he was given an opportunity to put his theory to the test. Bruce, an identical twin, at the age of 6 months old was left without a penis due to a circumcision procedure going horribly wrong. Money jumped at the opportunity, and the radical decision was made to raise Bruce as a female, and Bruce became Brenda.
Over the next three decades this case arguably became one of the most controversial in the history of psychology.
After forteen years of being Brenda, the impact of living as a female had taken its toll and Brenda reverted back to her true biological sex. Moneys theory had failed, with tragic consequences. David, at the age of 38, drove to his local supermarket and shot himself.
So was this playing god? Could the years of emotional torment have been avoided?
I believe that although research is important and our constant quest for knowledge admiral, there are some things in life better left untouched by science.
“Nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human mind as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate; that there are no mysteries in nature; that our triumphs are complete, and that there are no new worlds to conquer.”
Sir Humphry Davy
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2000/boyturnedgirl.shtml
psucab 
Oh my lord, what an interesting topic. Not every blog I read leads me to sit for 20 minutes reading into the topic. I completely agree with your points and as your conclusion points out it is both a divisive topic and a topic which is incredibly difficult to conclude upon! I agree that human research can go to far. In terms of science, is human cloning too far? Would these clones be humans? Would they have souls and thoughts? Is it okay to genetically splice the genes of a spider into a goat so that the milk produced can be spun into a material twice the strength of kevlar (sounds crazy but apparently its true!) (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/End%20of%20the%20World/Genetics%20Nightmare/spider_goats.htm) [most of this website is utter b*****ks in my opinion but is an interesting point of view].
However when we look at the other side. Would a world where no child had to suffer with down syndrome, muscular dystrophy or cystic fibrosis be a better place (http://www.theology21.com/2011/06/14/when-scientists-play-god-how-far-is-too-far/). Or would this lead to humans becoming a super race that will eat itself (God, I have always wanted to write a sci-fi film!) Just found this really interesting! Great controversial blog topic!
Pingback: Homework for Thandi! « psud6d
Please check your comment moderation settings (instructions on blackboard!) as there seems to be some difficulties posting comments to your blog.
Thanks.
sdfs
The Dr Money example you provided was truly tragic and of course should never be repeated. However, I’m not sure if it’s the best example. Taking David’s side of the story when he spoke publicly about his experience, I don’t think the experiment itself should be blamed. Dr Money failed to see (or acknowledge) the evidence that the experiment failed early on (http://reason.com/archives/2004/05/24/the-death-of-david-reimer). If the experiment had been ended earlier, things may have turned out differently. Dr Money is also portrayed as coercive and abusive and said to have forced David and his brother “play at thrusting movements and copulation” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer). If the experiment was done properly, ended when it had clearly failed and with the needs of the patient put first, this experiment may have turned out very differently. It might have been a non-event, it didn’t work, no tragic circumstances, lesson learnt. Dr Money’s theory was wrong, which I have no problem with. Getting things wrong and learning from your mistakes is what science is all about. However, I think Dr Money’s behaviour was wrong, which centred the experiment on himself and his research rather than the patient (also the child sex stuff but we can’t say for sure that happened).
Getting back to the point of the blog, I don’t think there are areas that should be left untouched (talking from a psychology point of view- animal testing and genetic engineering is another matter). If we put the patient/participant needs first and follow the ethical guide lines we should be able to tackle tricky areas without harming anyone. An example of this is a replication of the Milgram experiment by Burger, 2009 (http://psychology.about.com/b/2009/01/14/researchers-replicate-milgrams-famous-obedience-experiment.htm). Rather than allowing participants go up to the full 450V limit, they stopped at 150V and then extrapolated the results. This allowed Burger to gain the results but also not leave participants a nervous wreck.
Pingback: Comments « psuc5d