How would deregulation affect society for the advancement of science and technology?

Deregulation to advance science and technology can lead to social and ethical problems. Regulations are not meant to limit technological progress, but to support responsible research and the healthy development of society.

 

The Japanese anime Ghost in the Shell is considered a masterpiece, the Terminator franchise is an era in movie history, and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World is ranked fifth on the list of the 100 greatest works of English literature of the 20th century. What do these three have in common? They all depict a society that could be the result of technological advancement taken to extremes. As the world evolves, the boundaries between machines and humans are gradually being eroded, and the rapid development of biotechnology, including artificial reproduction, has made it possible to “produce” humans directly. In such a situation, the dark social images depicted in the aforementioned movies and novels are no longer fictionalized, but are approaching our not-too-distant future. This is why I would like to talk about the topic of “Ethical regulation of science and technology”.
Advocates of deregulation and the active utilization of science and technology say that regulations on science and technology hinder the overall development of science, i.e., various regulations and restrictions limit research, which puts a significant burden on researchers. They complain about many domestic restrictions and laws, especially in the field of drones and autonomous vehicles. They argue that rigid regulations create many obstacles to opening up new markets, which in turn leads to weaker competitiveness and potential economic losses for future industries. They argue that regulations should be removed to facilitate the commercialization of new technologies and the market entry of these new products or services.
This is a valid argument. Economic prosperity and scientific advancement are certainly not irreplaceable values. However, even if removing regulations from science and technology does lead to scientific advancement, will it benefit society as a whole? Not necessarily. If we rush to advance science without considering the ethical issues of science, it can be very helpful to some people, but it can be very problematic for others. For example, people may lose their space to live and their right to life may be violated because their surroundings are destroyed for the sake of scientific advancement.
Furthermore, as technology advances and becomes more commercialized, the lack of proper oversight can lead to bigger and more complex problems later on. Take the case of self-driving cars, which are rapidly developing and soon to be commercialized overseas. In the October 2015 issue of MIT Technology Review, an article titled “Why Self-Driving Cars Must Be Programmed to Kill” was published. While self-driving cars can certainly be safer than traditional driving, there are always unforeseen circumstances, and the article points out three main ones. The article points out three main scenarios: killing multiple pedestrians and a single pedestrian, seriously injuring a single pedestrian and the driver himself, and seriously injuring multiple pedestrians and the driver. Resolving this ethical choice is crucial because drivers will not want to buy a car that is designed to kill them in an emergency, and society cannot easily tolerate a car that is designed to kill innocent pedestrians. Therefore, if we rush into development without addressing these issues up front, we may cause greater social disruption down the road. Therefore, removing regulations on science can cause great social problems, and it is necessary to consider the ethical issues of science through various regulations.
Ethical considerations in science and technology are not a shackle to technological progress, but rather help scientists to take responsibility for their work. This can help steer science in a healthier direction for society. For example, during World War II, scientists working on the Manhattan Project to develop the atomic bomb believed that such ethical concerns were for politicians and that they could just get on with their research. However, the overwhelming power of the atomic bomb to hasten the end of the war, and the sheer number of casualties, made many of them realize the gravity of what they had done. This led the German physicist and philosopher Heisenberg to emphasize the external responsibility of scientists in addition to their internal responsibility. The nuclear threat that persists to this day is perhaps a costly consequence of the failure of researchers, and by extension, society, to be more concerned and holistic about the ramifications of their work.
Of course, unreasonable regulations or unrealistic constraints that do not reflect the times should be relaxed and technology should be encouraged to develop. But this should never lead to unbridled indulgence. At a time when science and technology are more influential and penetrating than ever before, we can no longer afford to be complacent and develop first and worry later. It is no longer possible to be indifferent to science, and it is essential that all walks of life are no longer indifferent to science and technology ethics, and that active discussions are held to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. Science is a very powerful force, but it requires wisdom to use it correctly. Under the common goal of the ultimate happiness of humans and society, science and ethics will no longer be opposites, but complementary, encouraging and challenging each other.