One of the Basic Principles of Science is to have some level of skepticism about the results of a hypothesis. If it wasn't for this skepticism, there would be no experimentation and all hypotheses would be treated as facts. However, philosophers may bring a skepticism beyond WHAT results an experiment could show and consider WHY the experiment may be moral or immoral to begin with. Countless scientific discoveries have been made at a terrible cost (experiments on Prisoners of War, for example), indicating that not all pursuit of higher knowledge is justified by the benefits the results could bring.

The increase of technology surrounding machines has and will bring about serious moral questions. Films like AI: Artificial Intelligence and The Terminator give us perspectives on the complexities surrounding highly intelligent machines, but even in our modern world we are on the cusp of tremendous technological breakthroughs in robotics and remote control. The US military saw exponential increases in lethal drone use during the Obama administration, a new trend that necessitates careful consideration of both the number of lives that can be saved through precision action against dangerous persons and the implications of having hands-off methods of killing with such ease.

This COVID-19 pandemic is a perfect example of the limits of a singular perspective against a complex problem. A purely scientific approach to the crisis would likely deem complete shut downs of our entire global economy in an attempt to prevent the spread of the virus. A humanistic approach might look at the social and psychological harms of extended isolation. The effective solutions that some nations have put in place involve a delicate balance of trust in the scientific processes as well as an understanding of human nature and how people are likely to behave.