If we conclude that there is some knowledge we should

not pursue on ethical grounds, how can we determine

the boundaries of acceptable investigation within an

area of knowledge?

Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.

1
According to the dictionary, a boundary is “a limit of a subject or sphere of activity”. Boundaries

can be written in formal documents, or be abstract in the form of society concepts; but in any

way, they state what is acceptable and what is not. Ethics includes aspects such as the

relationship between facts and values, and how ethical and epistemic values are built into the

quest for knowledge. Having this in mind, what is ethically acceptable and what is not differs

from each culture, but once we have concluded that there is some knowledge we should not

pursue on ethical grounds, there is the need of finding a way on how to determine boundaries or

limits in the different areas of knowledge. In this essay, this knowledge question is discussed

regarding the natural sciences and history; comparing both of them in the different ways of

establishing boundaries for acceptable investigation, suchs as: experience, balance, consent and

paradigm shifts.

One way of establishing boundaries for acceptable investigation is according to

experience and what is already accepted in the field. The natural sciences follow documents and

laws that state the existing boundaries. One example is the Universal Declaration on Bioethics

and Human Rights, which UNESCO created in 1997 setting laws and constraints to protect

human’s safety from science experiments. 1

In history, experience is obtained with consequences, but the way consequences are

determined as boundaries differ. Consequences come after an act is committed and society has

had a reaction to it. An extra factor to consider is intention, while it can be intended or

unintended, harm is caused and consequences are real, therefore boundaries are setted. One

example is “The Nuremberg code”, this ethical code was created in 1947 right after WWII to

1 Universal declaration on bioethics and human rights. UNESCO. (1997). Retrieved from
https://en.unesco.org/themes/ethics-science-and-technology/bioethics-and-human-rights

2
establish boundaries based on the consequences of the nazi experiments, what society considers

one of the most unhuman developments in history. In this case, regardless of their intention, all

the experiments were considered cruel and their procedure was prohibited by the code; even

though some of them had medical research purposes, and their conclusions were important for

science. 2

In both areas of knowledge, boundaries are established after the damage has already been

done; but on the other hand, knowledge has been obtained. Another way to establish boundaries

is comparing the knowledge gained with the damage caused. There has always been this debate

between knowledge being value-free or boundaries needed to be established; if it is worth it to

lose some data that in an ethical world would not exist.

In the natural sciences opinions are really diverse, as Paul Root shows in his article

“Reasons Scientists Avoid Thinking About Ethics”. In this article the author explains the ethics

of science from different points of view of scientists. Some of them state that their “scientific

work has little to do with ethics” and that science is above everything; while others see a

necessity of establishing boundaries in natural science. Another argument is that scientists are

not trained in ethics, that is the reason why now the National Institutes of Health (NIH) requires

an ethics curriculum discussion protection of human participants in research for all the personnel

involved. 3

In history, a way to establish boundaries is deciding if past studies that in the past caused

a violation of human rights should be used today as resources, not taking in consideration if they

2 Public Broadcasting Service. (n.d.). Nova online | holocaust on trial | should they be used? no (2). PBS.
Retrieved from https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/holocaust/experi02_no.html
3 Rosenbaum, L. (2020, June 15). The hideous truths of testing vaccines on humans. Forbes. Retrieved from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/leahrosenbaum/2020/06/12/willowbrook-scandal-hepatitis-experiments-hideous-truths-
of-testing-vaccines-on-humans/?sh=fbd0d5f279c8

3
were legal or not back when they were performed. One example of past knowledge being used in

new investigations is John Hayward’s study about hypothermia. He used data from nazi

experiments that consisted on freezing people to the point of death and later trying to revive

them. With his study was able to learn how long a swimmer can swim before dying of

hypothermia, and therefore he has saved many lives; he used data obtained after the death of

hundreds of people to create new knowledge. To defend his position, Dr. John S. Hayward said:

"I don't want to have to use this data, but there is no other and will be no other in an ethical

world. I've rationalized it a little bit. But to not use it would be equally bad." He defends that

once the damage is done, that gained knowledge should be used in order to make the sacrifice

worth it.4

A further aspect to take under consideration is consent. The debate argues, as in the

previous section, if obtaining knowledge should be the priority or, instead, consent should be

required. Obtaining valid consent can also be challenging in the context of behavioral

advertising, marketing, product improvement or profiling. An additional topic is who is allowed

to give consent for the people that are not capable of, as children or dead people.

In the natural sciences, there have been multiple occasions when experiments have been

carried out without consent. One example is James Marion Sims’ experiments, who is considered

“the father of modern gynecology”. In the 1840s he conducted painful surgery without anestesia

in women under slavery who could not legally say no, but who did not give consent. This makes

us wonder if personal ethical boundaries should exist, even when the law does not require them.

4 Gary LaFever, M. H. (2020, October 19). In life sciences research, 'informed consent' isn't enough. Retrieved
January 18, 2022, from https://iapp.org/news/a/in-life-sciences-research-informed-consent-isnt-enough/

4
And who decides who is able to give consent; in these women cases, they were slaves so the did

not have rights and therefore someone could decide over their lives. 5

A second example in this field is the Hepatitis vaccine experimentation on mentally

disabled children, in the 1950s and 1960s, by Dr. Saul Krugman. The parents of the children

gave consent for the experimentation, but it was under the pressure that that was the only way

their children would get the medical care they needed. They used emotional pressure to get their

consent, as long as fake advertising that hid the truth of the experiments. As one of the parents

stated: "I had no choice, I had tried so many different places and so many arrangements, and they

didn't work out, so I went along with it." This example shows that consent should always be

given freely -without pressure and with all the information- and that boundaries and laws that

protect that right should be established. 6

Nowadays consent standards are higher, which means more strict boundaries. The GDPR

(General Data Protection Regulation) and the EDPB (European Data Protection Board) defines

consent as a “freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous” and manifested through “an

explicit statement or by a clear affirmative action” indicating the data subject’s agreement. It also

studies the power balance between the researchers and the subjects. 7

In history, one of the hardest boundaries to set is consent for people who are not alive.

There is this balance between respecting people's wishes or gaining knowledge. One example is

“The Diary of a Young Girl” by Anna Frank. Currently it is one of the most known stories and it

has helped thousands of people to get a closer perspective about history. Anna Frank was not

able to give consent to publish her notes as she died before they were released; even when on this

5 The Nuremberg code . (1947). Retrieved from

https://media.tghn.org/medialibrary/2011/04/BMJ_No_7070_Volume_313_The_Nuremberg_Code.pdf
6 Wolpe, P. R. (2006, June 15). Reasons scientists avoid thinking about ethics. Retrieved from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867406006763
7 Lewis, W. (n.d.). The controversial dr. J. Marion Sims (1813-1883). International urogynecology journal. Retrieved
from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32328679/

5
occasion, she wrote in them her wish of becoming a journalist. They used that to justify the

publication of her diary saying she wanted to share her story, even though she never specifically

stated so. Her relatives were the ones that gave consent, but this makes us think about what was

more important: their opinions (of her alive relatives) or hers; or if consent should even be asked

if the person is no longer there to oppose, and to whom. They put a boundary in asking her

relatives, but they did not go further by thinking about her wishes.

Even if we found the perfect way with the exact constraints to establish boundaries, they

would change over time. Paradigm shifts exist in all areas of knowledge, they change the way

people understand them, at the same time as what they consider ethical and what they do not.

In the natural sciences, paradigm shifts happen on a big scale and very frequently. There

are multiple studies that prove how ethics change in science. One example is “Ethics in field

experimentation: a call to establish new standards to protect the public from unwanted

manipulation and real harm” by Rose McDermott and Peter K. In this article they discuss the

need of establishing new ethical constraints as technology advances and more controversial

escenarios that before were inimaginable became possible; they are trying to set new boundaries

as new dangers appear. 8

Another topic, which ethical acceptance has changed over time is vivisection. Elizabeth

Kitt, in her article “Vivisection in the 1800’s and Today” explains how moral constraints evolve

and change. Before the majority of people were not concerned about animal suffering during

experimentation, but each day more and more fight against it, as well as new laws are being

8 McDermott, R., & Hatemi, P. K. (2020, December 1). Ethics in field experimentation: A call to establish new
standards to protect the public from unwanted manipulation and real harms. PNAS. Retrieved from
https://www.pnas.org/content/117/48/30014

6
created to protect animal rights.9 One example of one of the new laws is Spain’s law of

recognition of animals as ‘sentient beings’, shows how there is a change in what society accepts

in natural science, specifically in experimentation with animals (vivisection). 10

On the other hand, in history, paradigm shifts may come slower, as it being the past and

not directly affecting the present; yet they change boundaries or put in doubt the existing ones.

One example of this is when the last statue of Franco that remained in Spain was removed from

the streets of Melilla. Statues that were created in the past to adore the Spanish dictator Franco

are now being destroyed because of people’s change in perspective about history; they now find

offensive what before they worshiped. 11

In conclusion, there are many ways in which boundaries for acceptable investigation can

be established; but all of them have arguments against and in favor. One of the most important

steps is to determine what knowledge should or should not be pursued. For doing this, there are

some topics that should be considered: experience, balance, consent and paradigm shifts. Even

though in specific examples or areas of knowledge, some can be more important than others. The

natural sciences affect the present, what society is more involved with; meaning that they have

an easier way to empathize and therefore consent and balance are given more thought than in

history. History speaks about the past, and therefore people sometimes find it more difficult to

relate their moral values with it; that is the reason why regarding the experience and past

consequences works better than in the natural sciences. While paradigm shifts are as present is

9 Yale Global Health Review. (2016, January 26). Vivisection in the 1800s and today. Yale Global Health Review.
Retrieved from https://yaleglobalhealthreview.com/2016/01/26/vivisection-in-the-1800s-and-today/
10 Xosé Hermida, E. S. (2021, December 3). Spain approves new law recognizing animals as 'sentient beings'. EL
PAÍS English Edition. Retrieved January 18, 2022, from https://english.elpais.com/society/2021-12-03/spain-
approves-new-law-recognizing-animals-as-sentient-beings.html#:~:text=Animals%20in%20Spain%20will
%20no,standing%20than%20an%20inanimate%20object
11 Estaire, Ó. (2021, February 23). La última Estatua de Franco que quedaba en España es retirada de las calles
de melilla. El País. Retrieved January 18, 2022, from https://elpais.com/espana/2021-02-23/la-ultima-estatua-de-
franco-es-retirada-de-las-calles-de-melilla.html

7
both, because they reflect society’s evolution, what demands a change of boundaries. But, in

both areas of knowledge, the same methods can be used to determine the boundaries, and in

both, different opinions on how to do it and what is acceptable exist.

Word count: 1797