Should the progression of science be held back by "moral standards"?

Yes. One moral standard i have is 'dont kill people'. If research requires hurting anyone or putting the enviroment at risk, then the people conducting the research are nothing short of evil.

Unfortunately, science is held back because most research funding come from huge corporations who fund scientists to come up with results that are good for the corporation.
Most corporations have no moral standards.

i think yhe, anything that dosent afect human dna, should be alowed! and dont give me the huma/animal rights crap, the only point animals are on this earth is for us, suvival of the fitest >=D

I don't think that science is progressing linearly as much as it is branching out. So, like branches, science will find a way around obstacles in an organic fashion. There is no end for science since we will always be making new discoveries and until the end of the world this fact will shine true. Morals are much slower to change, and I'm sure a stream of water will topple a brick wall given enough time anyway. Should it be held back? Ethics are subjective and static which makes me think about whether or not science can be held back.

No most definatly not, but there are those huge wars that lifts the moral standards of testing temporarily.

All facets of science are regulated by ethical guidelines. A significant portion of scientific study need not however be concerned with these as the majority of experimentation that occurs in those areas is independent of human subjects; most chemistry is an example of this. I agree that moral standards are extremely subjective, but in most cases can be generalized when it comes to matters like this, for example nobody will kill enough people to make a viable conclusion on the idea that smoking causes lung cancer. So in a way, scientific progression regulates itself, as the vast vast majority of people will not go to extreme lengths for progression.

WHat the hell

I am going to have a very strong NO.

No, science should not be held back by moral standards. I'm sorry if anyone has these moral standards, but Science in my view is top priority. I think that for results on areas we do not know is more important than the views of religious oppositions or general morals.

Call me evil, but I think anything should be done for knowledge. Even if it means loss of life. When we find cures is where the lives get saved, I think it's a small price to pay. When we are able to grow crops which can be genetically altered to survive in harshest of environments is when starvation ends for example.

Knowledge is power.

I really hate all this moral doodah.

NO. Needn't do that.

Although most of these gentlemen possibly women included would believe that the expansion of science would be good, I am honestly scared for our future, scientists say that current technology is 3 years ahead of textbooks and the public norm. I worry how advanced technology will get in the future I mean read Ray Bradbury, all of his stories are possible outcomes that may happen because of the frightening advancement of technology... Humans strive to perfect technology when we have yet to perfect ourselves so I think we should slow down the technology and actuallyhold onto our common morals and by the way I am not saying this from any religous stand point WHATSOEVER.