What are the Obligations of Scientists?

[Blackburn]

Hi Gang, I'm in the midst of writing a short 1000 word essay for uni (Hand in tomorrow night). I'm not asking for anyone to do my homework for me, as I'll probably have this thing written before much discussion can occur.

But it made me think about what ethics would occur in a truly Communist society with Scientific Advancement.

The topic is:


Lewis Wolpert suggests that scientists’ “…obligations are only that they must inform the public about the possible implications of their work and, particularly where sensitive social issues arise, they must be clear about the reliability of their studies.”

Discuss the following. 'Consider the scientist’s roles and responsibilities as both citizens and as scientists, the impact and management of social values in scientific practice, and the role that government has regarding how scientific knowledge is used.'

A lot of the ethical topics we've been discussing in the course relates to scientific discovers and the ethical impact of said stuff.

Like the development of Atomic weapons etc.

What do you think? Should science be guided by a type of ethics, or is science ethic neutral?

(Again, I'm not getting anyone to do my homework :lol: )

[Octavian]

Full disclosure is the only ethical absolute I personally believe all scientists should come through on. After that it's more of a situational question.

[MarxSchmarx]

I think it's fair to say scientists have no special ethics.

For example, a medical scientist has no obligation to pursue research likely to improve human health unless it is stipulated in her contract - indeed, she has no more obligation to cure cancer, say, than to cure male baldness. It follows from this that a scientist has an obligation to serve society only insofar as he is renumerated by society to serve society. But this is no different than say a garbage man. A person who conducts experiments in their garage during the off-time is still probably fairly called a scientist, and they have no obligation to pursue socially useful research.

nor do I think scientists have a special obligation not to mislead people when they are used for research study, say. Rather, everybody has an obligation not to experiment on people in such way. It is wrong for me to, say, trick you into taking a substance without your informed consent irrespective of whether or not I am a scientist.

Morever, it is often claimed that scientists should not fabricate data, should save the results of their experiments, etc... I tend to think that this is something which the community can address and is not an ethical issue. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and people who accept preposturous claims backed with shoddy data have only themselves to blame. As to the validity of scientific claims, caveat emptor.

Now, if a scientist happens upon something that is destructive, should the scientist keep this mum? That is a different question. I don't think a scientist, as a scientist, has any obligation one way or another. As a human being, they might. For example, if this person were a literary scholar instead of a scientist, and happened upon a doomsday device one day in the grocery store, should they keep mum about it? A very real question, but the fact that an individual happens to be a scientist or discovered something in the course of their work is irrelevant.

In short, scientists have no special ethics qua scientists. They have obligations as humans, obligations to their terms of renumaration, but these are in principle no different than any other profession.

[¿Que?]

You might want to throw a word in about institutional review boards. These are institutions that exist within Universities where all the research, particularly that with animals and humans, has to go through and be accepted before it can begin. Naturally, IRB's take on ideological biases and inclinations, much like any institution. When I was drafting my IRB proposal, my chair instructed me not to say that a large part of my research was an attempt to uncover bias, prejudice, and discrimination by faculty against students. She told me this, basically because she thought the IRB wouldn't like it, and in my proposal I ended up mentioning it in passing.

An IRB is a regulatory mechanism, that decides, based on mostly ethical but also utilitarian growns (particularly if money is concerned), what research gets done and what research does not. Obviously, it is to prevent things of the nature MarxShmarx discusses i.e. doomsday devices, harm or inhumane treatment towards subjects, etc. but you have to realize that most of the time, IRB's decision are based on the bias of the reviewers. Something might be kosher at one institution, but prohibited at another. There is no national or international IRB as far as I know.

[freya4]

I think that there should be some basic guiding principles when it comes to scientific research. For example, when conducting experiments, scientists should make sure that they are not causing any excessive harm to humans, and full consent should be given by their subjects. Otherwise, we might end up with a similar situation to that of Nazis, where they performed gross, inhumane and downright sickening experiments on their prisoners, whom they may not have even viewed as human beings, all for the sake of advancing their cause.

Besides from that, however, I think scientists have an obligation not to purposefully mislead the general public by playing around with data and such. It's hard to talk about truth or facts when it comes to science, because scientific theories are constantly changing, but when it comes down to the actual information and calculations, they should always be reported honestly. I don't necessarily think that scientists should have to report all their findings, though, but if they chose to, they should be accurate.

There is also the question of applied science, which is when the scientist decides to use his/her research as a means for some sort of application. This application can have results varying from extremely beneficial to purely disastrous. More often than not, however, I think when science is used to harm and cause destruction, it is not the individual scientist who chooses to utilize his/her research in such a way, but rather the state or some external organization who commissions the scientist to work for them, such as in the case of nuclear weapons. Scientists who choose to become involved in such fields should be aware of the potential ethical implications of their work.

[∞]

In my opinion communism needs to find a way to integrate a new sense of pride to the people in that society. What I mean by that is instead of idolizing celebrities and aspiring to be businessmen, people will have purer interests. I want to believe that communism will make its best attempt to let the new generations aspire to be engineers, doctors, machinists, teachers, and scientists. Unfortunately a career in science (not medical) will most likely lead you to be an underpaid high-school teacher. Teachers are vital, just like doctors, as are scientists. Capitalism (at least in America) is causing a depravity in many of these careers because there is no money in it. Therefore these careers are looked down upon.

I'm tired of people sneering at me because I tell them I want to be a physicist when I am done with college. "There is no money in that", I don't give a fuck you stupid piece of shit. While I'm working with conundrums related to the cosmos you can fuck of with your shitty insurance company. Honestly the level of backwardness in this country is vile. Even worse they are cutting funding from education and NASA. Why? Well lets look at this... school doesn't give derping 'street smarts' (whatever the fuck that is). Scientists aren't making nukes anymore so the government says fuck 'em. Fucking capitalists and politicians ruin everything.

This is why I'm a communist, because every useful member of society is working under a fucking leech.
Only time science isn't ethical when the government wants something from it, and even then the scientists aren't completely aware of what the bastards are going to do.

[AnonymousOne]

To be objective and transparent. To fully and accurately report methodology and data. To publish all data with out censor. To educate and explain their results to lay people in a way that can be understood. To remember just how ignorant they are of the larger universe, and to make sure that they have no pretension of knowledge.