Scientists of bygone days were inspired to investigate the workings of nature by nothing more than their own driving curiosity. They had little with which to unravel the world around them except their ingenuity, observations and thoughts.
The modern scientist is a different animal all together.
He comes ready-equipped with several years' training on how to think 'scientifically', is carefully rehearsed in accepted scientific 'truths', and will enter a world where low-tech is old hat.
His enquiries are guided by the latest scientific fashion, usually a technology-driven one. Commercial interests will routinely supply his funding, the materials he is required to study, and a specification of how he is to perform his study.
His tools will be commercially-confidential technologies whose cost is measured in of tens of thousands of pounds. He will know little about what he is using to further his research beyond the information and training given by the manufacturers.
He will be working to a life-time of deadlines: the end of the current contract, the end of the current grant, the end of an arbitrary time-limit set by a board of directors, or by the need to get something, anything, accepted for publication so he can chalk it up on his CV.
His data often do not belong to him.
In short, the modern scientist comes straight-jacketed in all aspects of his research. He must repeat the mantra of the current scientific 'truth'. He must accept an interest in the latest commercial ventures. He must take on trust that the technologies he is using actually work as described. He must meet all the deadlines in any way he can to keep himself in a job and provide for his family. Or, he can get out of science (and many do).
Recognising that the system we have put in place penalises the non-conformist and is not conducive to good, honest science, the then Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Government launched a 'Universal ethical code for scientists' in March 2007.
The code is, of course, voluntary, but it was felt necessary to raise the profile of a number of ethical concerns:
- Rigour, honesty and integrity
- Act with skill and care in all scientific work. Maintain up to date skills and assist their development in others.
- Take steps to prevent corrupt practices and professional misconduct. Declare conflicts of interest.
- Be alert to the ways in which research derives from and affects the work of other people, and respect the rights and reputations of others.
- Respect for life, the law and the public good
- Ensure that your work is lawful and justified.
- Minimise and justify any adverse effect your work may have on people, animals and the natural environment
- Responsible communication: listening and informing
- Seek to discuss the issues that science raises for society. Listen to the aspirations and concerns of others.
- Do not knowingly mislead, or allow others to be misled, about scientific matters. Present and review scientific evidence, theory or interpretation honestly and accurately.
This is a long-overdue recognition that issues in science and technology have an ethical dimension. It is refreshing to see an acknowledgment at last that scientists must bear a responsibility to their co-workers and to society, and that they must listen and discuss their work outside their own narrow field. The obligation to declare conflicts of interest already exists in for example peer-reviewed journals, but has been haphazardly applied in the past.
However, do we really need a government-sponsored ethical code to tell scientists to do their job with skill, to avoid corrupt practices and professional misconduct, to abide by the law and to tell the truth?
Since the Code hasn't changed what scientists do, it is interesting to consider whether the research projects currently underway are actually acceptable, or, do they fall foul of it? For example, how can you 'minimise and justify' the adverse effects which your work on weapons of mass destruction will have on people, animals and the environment? How can you present scientific evidence honestly and accurately if you don't have any control over your source materials or techniques? How can you avoid complicity in misleading people if all you are allowed to say are the words of your funder's PR department?
OUR COMMENT
If the above description of the modern scientist being told what to think, what to say and what to do seems far-fetched, remember how Arpad Pusztai was summarily removed from his laboratory and denied all access to his research for saying something scientifically unfashionable. Similar suppression of scientific research which was giving commercially inconvenient results has been repeated recently with Russian Scientist, Irina Irmakova, and French scientist, Christian Velot. These are all respected, experienced scientists and experts in their fields. Their crimes were to realise that there are adverse effects of gene technology on people, animals and the natural environment which can't be justified.
The treatment of these scientists seems incompatible with the ethos of presenting and reviewing scientific evidence, theory or interpretation honestly and accurately. It is definitely not in harmony with the notion of respect of the rights and reputations of others. It actively rules out any avenue to seek to discuss the issues that science raises for society, and demonstrates precious little listening to the aspirations and concerns of others.
If you are interested in promoting ethical science, you can sign a petition supporting the latest victim, Dr Velot at http://sciencescitoyennes.org/spip.php?article1638, which demands:
“that Christian Velot and his group must be allowed to continue their independent research. In particular, his entire research funding must be restored and he must be permitted to remain in his laboratory at least until the end of his current contract, i.e. until the end of 2009.” It also demands “that the authorities pay serious attention to threats to the freedom of expression of scientists and ... that there should be legal protection for whistle blowers, as has been agreed in principle at the Grenelle de l'Environnement.”
SOURCES:
- Stuart Parkinson, The universal ethical code for scientists – how good is it? Scientists for Global Responsibility Newsletter, Winter 2008, Issue 35
- Belinda Martineau, First Fruit, 2001, ISBN 0-07-120027-3
- Support French Scientist Telling the Truth About GMOs, Science in Society, Issue 37, Spring 2008