"
Team:Arizona State/Ethical Conditions
From 2012.igem.org
(Created page with "{{:Team:Arizona_State/Template:Header}}") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{:Team:Arizona_State/Template:Header}} | {{:Team:Arizona_State/Template:Header}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | This biosensor has the ability to change the lives of people in developing nations. The biosensor allows communities to detect the quality of the water supply. Knowing when the water is contaminated can stop people from consuming dirty water. The ethical dilemma arises when, after testing the water and determining that the supply is contaminated, the community cannot treat the water. Is it ethical to present information to a population that does not have the resources available to address the problem? | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Sharing information about a contaminated water supply in a community can create problems. Addressing one side of the ethical dilemma, providing a community with the awareness of contaminated water and thus possible illness may be knowledge that the community does not want. Without the tools necessary to clean the water, notifying communities of a contaminated water source may seem futile. The awareness may be perceived by the community as a means of oppression: an external influence comes in to a village, diagnoses a problem, and then departs leaving the community members to address a problem that is not within their means to address. Water is an intrinsic need; humans depend on it. Coming into a community and then determining that water is contaminated can be perceived as a disruptive force. The community is told that the water is not good to consume, but with the inability to treat the water individuals are left using contaminated water. Problems may arise when sharing information with a community that is unable to solve the problem as the knowledge may be futile and can also act as a disruptive force. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Providing knowledge, however, can benefit a community in numerous ways. First and foremost, the knowledge of contaminated water provides a community with the power of making a decision. The community must become involved in the decision-making process, deciding which actions to take and how to expend accessible resources. Knowledge of contamination allows community members to take immediate steps. Such steps can be rudimentary measures, such as boiling or chlorination treatments. In each situation, using their own culture and morality, a community can decide what to do. Knowledge of contamination provides a community with the power of choice. The biosensor is preventative; it provides knowledge. This awareness allows action, and decision making, which is empowering. The argument that a community should remain in the darkness if action cannot be taken is an argument for passivity. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | The ASU iGEM team has decided that the decision to share knowledge of a contaminated water source with a community that may not have the necessary resources is ethical. Awareness of the issue leads to action and decision-making, which leads to empowerment. The ASU iGEM team wants to empower communities in developing countries. | ||
Revision as of 03:44, 4 October 2012
This biosensor has the ability to change the lives of people in developing nations. The biosensor allows communities to detect the quality of the water supply. Knowing when the water is contaminated can stop people from consuming dirty water. The ethical dilemma arises when, after testing the water and determining that the supply is contaminated, the community cannot treat the water. Is it ethical to present information to a population that does not have the resources available to address the problem?
Sharing information about a contaminated water supply in a community can create problems. Addressing one side of the ethical dilemma, providing a community with the awareness of contaminated water and thus possible illness may be knowledge that the community does not want. Without the tools necessary to clean the water, notifying communities of a contaminated water source may seem futile. The awareness may be perceived by the community as a means of oppression: an external influence comes in to a village, diagnoses a problem, and then departs leaving the community members to address a problem that is not within their means to address. Water is an intrinsic need; humans depend on it. Coming into a community and then determining that water is contaminated can be perceived as a disruptive force. The community is told that the water is not good to consume, but with the inability to treat the water individuals are left using contaminated water. Problems may arise when sharing information with a community that is unable to solve the problem as the knowledge may be futile and can also act as a disruptive force.
Providing knowledge, however, can benefit a community in numerous ways. First and foremost, the knowledge of contaminated water provides a community with the power of making a decision. The community must become involved in the decision-making process, deciding which actions to take and how to expend accessible resources. Knowledge of contamination allows community members to take immediate steps. Such steps can be rudimentary measures, such as boiling or chlorination treatments. In each situation, using their own culture and morality, a community can decide what to do. Knowledge of contamination provides a community with the power of choice. The biosensor is preventative; it provides knowledge. This awareness allows action, and decision making, which is empowering. The argument that a community should remain in the darkness if action cannot be taken is an argument for passivity.
The ASU iGEM team has decided that the decision to share knowledge of a contaminated water source with a community that may not have the necessary resources is ethical. Awareness of the issue leads to action and decision-making, which leads to empowerment. The ASU iGEM team wants to empower communities in developing countries.
