Science is conducted by humans for humans. It is not done in a vacuum. Even the lone researcher working in a basement hopes to make a discovery worth sharing. The need for ethical science shows most clearly when humans experiment on humans – with or without their consent. Two recent articles underscore the indispensability of moral grounds for science, and a third raises questions about the source of morality.
Darwin died in 1882, but more than any other scientist, seems to live on in the science news. Here are some recent examples. The question is: do any of these articles really have anything to do with the theory that made him famous? Or is some other dynamic at work that keeps him in the forefront?