Great Britain and Historical Perspective: Episode I

As part of a faculty-led study abroad trip to the United Kingdom, I have been required to write topical essays each day on a subject of the professor’s choosing. The following is my first response on the moral costs of scientific and economic progress, originally written 13 May. The first series of haikus are based on the story of William Burke, a murderer who delivered his victims to the University of Edinburgh for profit.

Body-snatching Scots

Digging people from the ground

Just to make a buck.

Running out of dead

The bills are still coming due

Quotas must be met.

Murder was the key

The doctor was paying cash

The law took offense.

Paying for his crimes

He was killed for theater

Books were made of him.

Killing for science

Joining victims in the lab

Poetic justice.

Death for death for death

Some retributive justice

Human tendency.

Science has a checkered moral past, as today’s experience has illustrated. Should we simply accept and utilize the results of history’s ill-gotten gains or does our morality dictate that we either summarily dispose of this fruit from a poisonous tree or attempt to amend the wrongs of history committed in this dark pursuit? None of these options is ethically practical.

Guilt tends to cloud the sense of duty, and knowledge of a field’s past indiscretions can inhibit a scientist’s drive to advance their research. It could be argued that loyal dedication to this craft requires a sociopathic desire for knowledge, as death has been a major contributor to the body of scientific information.

Dispensing with the gathered data would be irresponsible, as much of the tainted information cannot be re-obtained through legitimate means. One must also consider that science is a scaffolded profession, with historical knowledge built into the modern discourse, to support arguments or serve as cautionary tales. Even if these studies could be disregarded and reaccomplished, would this actually serve to respect those sacrificed or simply massage the guilty consciences of the living?

Amending the wrongs committed in the name of science is simply impractical, unless they were committed on a massive group level. In the case of the Scottish body-makers (In a way, this market followed an earlier arc in human history, when gatherers became farmers.), harm was perpetuated on a predominantly individual level, so reparations in the moment wouldn’t be possible. However, substantial knowledge on the limits of human endurance was obtained by Nazi scientists by exerting Jewish prisoners to excessive conditions until they died. As these crimes of science were intertwined with cultural atrocities with generational impact, accommodations must be considered to elevate those whose modern livelihood is still inhibited due to the effects of the moral failings. (This consideration is more often attributed to the ripple effects of slavery in US history.)

With the more typical examples of scientific injustice, practical recourse seems to be limited to.remorseful utilization of the data sets with an eye toward a future of ethical research practices. Many lessons learned are born from mistakes in judgment and lapses in morality, and human endeavours have historically pushed the boundaries of both.

Capitalism

Allowing some to profit

Exploiting labor.

Slavery came first

Treating humans like horses

Paying them nothing.

Immigrants were next

With no rights as citizens

Paid almost nothing.

None left to exploit

Aside from workers like them

No one's getting paid.

When profit is sought

The workers aren’t an issue

They can be replaced.

Live and let live?

Let bygones be bygones?

Can we just move on?

Science and slave trade

Victims of knowledge and greed

What’s the difference?