Science has given us nearly infinite possibilities for controlling life. Scientists probe the origins of life through research with stem cells and embryos. To unlock the secrets of disease, biomedicine conducts cruel experiments on animals. GM crops are presented as the answer to hunger. Organ transplantation is almost routine. The international traffic in human body parts and tissues is thriving. The concept of brain death makes harvesting organs ethically more acceptable. It may also result in fundamental changes in our ideas about life. Science has provided new ways of controlling and manipulating life and death. As a consequence, difficult ethical questions are raised in increasingly complex cultural and social environments. This course will discuss major issues in the ethics of biology and medicine, from gene modification to Dolly the sheep. This unit will be introductory, but a small number of topical issues will be studied in depth. No scientific background beyond School Certificate level will be assumed.

The topics covered by HPSC1000 - Bioethics will be treated in more depth, in a special tutorial set aside for Advanced students.

Modern culture is a culture of science and modern science is the outcome of a historical process of 2,500 years. In this course we investigate how traditional knowledge gradually acquired the characteristics of 'science': the social structure, contents, values and methods we are familiar with. We will look at some primary chapters of this process, from antiquity to the end of the seventeenth century, and try to understand their implications to understanding contemporary science in its culture. Special emphasis will be given to the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century, which is often described as the most important period in the history of science and as one of the most vital stages in human intellectual history.

The topics covered in 'The Birth of Modern Science' will be covered in more depth, in a special tutorial set aside for advanced students.

Philosophers of science aim to define what distinguishes creationism from evolutionary theory, or astrology from astronomy. They give reasons why we can believe that today's theories are improvements over those that preceded them and how we know that what we see and do in scientific practice reflects the nature of reality. This course critically examines the most important attempts to define the scientific method, to draw a line dividing science from non-science, and to justify the high status generally accorded to scientific knowledge. The philosophies of science studied include Karl Popper's idea that truly scientific theories are falsifiable, Thomas Kuhn's proposal that science consists of a series of paradigms separated by scientific revolutions; and Feyerabend's anarchist claim that there are no objective criteria by which science can be distinguished from pseudo-science. This unit of study also explores contemporary theories about the nature of science and explores ideas about the nature of the experimental method and concepts such as underdetermination, the nature of scientific explanation, theory confirmation, realism, the role of social values in science, sociological approaches to understanding science, and the nature of scientific change.

The topics covered in 'What is This Thing Called Science?' will be covered in more depth, in a special tutorial set aside for advanced students.

Throughout the ages people have been born, have died, and in between have lived in various stages of sickness or health. In this unit of study we shall look at how these states of being were perceived in different times and places throughout history, while at the same time noting the increasing medicalisation of everyday life, together with the irony that the "miracles" of modern medicine appear to have created a generation of the "worried well". Using this historical perspective, we shall ask how perceptions of sickness, health and the related provision of health care have been intertwined with social, political and economic factors and, indeed still are today.

Modern Western science has a number of characteristics that distinguish it from other scientific cultures. It ascribes its tremendous success to sophisticated experiments and meticulous observation. It understands the universe in terms of tiny particles in motion and the forces between them. It is characterised by high- powered mathematical theorising and the rejection of any intention, value or purpose in Nature. Many of these characteristics were shaped in the 17th century, during the so-called scientific revolution. We will consider them from an integrated historical- philosophical perspective, paying special attention to the intellectual motivations of the canonical figures of this revolution and the cultural context in which they operated. Topics will include: experimentation and instrumentation, clocks, mechanistic philosophy, and the changing role of mathematics.

Science has become an essential element of Western societies. It is impossible to imagine our lives today without the achievements of science, technology, and medicine. Many scientists and laypeople think that scientific knowledge transcends political, social, cultural, and economic conditions. Sociologists of science think otherwise. In this unit, we will investigate the nature of science, the position of science in society, and the internal dynamics of science. Sociologists of science have compared scientific knowledge to a ship in a bottle: if you see the finished product, you can't understand how it came about, and you can't believe that it is not what it claims to be: the empirically determined truth about the world. In this unit, we will have a close look at some of these ships in bottles and examine how they got there. When observing science-in-the-making, rather than the finished product, the factors that influence science become much clearer. We will introduce some the most exciting and innovative ideas about what science is and how it works by examining the sociological and anthropological approaches to science that have become the basis for research in the social studies of science, technology, and medicine, including: the norms of science, scientists' images of themselves, the boundaries between science and other subjects, the rhetoric of scientific writing, laboratory work, science museums and science in the media.

Across the unit we examine one of the most interesting aspects of the history and philosophy of science. viz., the scientific practices and assumptions involved in making human beings an object of study. We will examine the ways in which psychologists and psychiatrists have investigated human nature, the kinds of experimental approaches they have developed to that end, the major controversies in this field, and the basic philosophical assumptions that have been made in the sciences of human nature. We investigate the developments of psychological theories and investigative methods as well as the development of psychiatric theory, treatment methods, and institutions.

Science is a powerful institution but its reputation as a noble pursuit of truth was tarnished by a number of developments in the twentieth century, like the dropping of the atomic bombs in WWII and the involvement of doctors in Nazi medicine. These incidents shook the faith of many scientists and others in the direction of science and the ethics of its practitioners. While science can furnish a strong factual account of the world, it lacks the internal resources to deal with the many normative questions it raises. On its own science cannot answer questions about right and wrong, about how we ought to make decisions and act. Instead it must appeal to ethics to help formulate adequate responses. Throughout the semester we will use the lens of scientific responsibility to frame and explore a number of questions intended to help expose important ethical issues in science, and to help you develop and articulate thoughtful answers and arguments. Such questions will include: Is science objective and value free? What is scientific fraud and does the very nature of the practice of science make fraud more likely? Do scientists have an obligation to disseminate their findings, and how does the increasing role of commercialization effect the responsibilities of scientists? Can we separate out science from its applications and thereby absolve scientists of ethically problematic outcomes? Should some scientific questions simply not be pursued, i.e. do they constitute forbidden knowledge? Can the methods of scientists be unethical and does unethical practice equate to bad science?