Scientific research is there to further the learning of mankind. It is not to be limited by social or federal ties. The only people scientists have to report to are the citizens of the world at large.
Now, that covers stuff like geographers, astronomers, and physicists. But what about the medical doctors? They are regularly bound by legal procedure and forced into certain ethical bounds by the state. Should these bounds proceed into research?
I argue no, they shouldn't. Doctors are already bound by very stringent moral rules. The Hippocratic Oath, a Ethics Review for every death, and hefty fines/penalties for any wrongdoing are already in place for day to day activity.The moral question is covered.
Why else would research by regulated? Because it departs into questions that national lawmakers don't want answered? That it proceeds into murky moral territory? Those are not grounds enough to stretch out regulations, because it makes a fatal mistake. It fails to trust our doctors to act ethically.
If we can trust our doctors with our hearts, our minds, and our bodies, then why can't we trust them with a few petri dishes and some bacteria? If we trust surgeons to perform heart transplants, why can't we trust their research counterparts, whom are overseen by the same ethics boards, to act reasonably and responsibly? Once you take out the question of trust, the only area left is individual sensibility. And that is an area that no one should regulate from.
