Should scientist have a common ethics code like the oath of Hippocrates for the doctors, or similar to the oath the lawyers give towards society? In order to answer this question it is necessary to examine the meaning of the words Science and Ethics, first independently and then in the context of society. The first step in this process is to define each word. According to Wikipedia “…science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research”[1].
Ethics on the other hand “… is the attempt to arrive at general moral standards that tell us [people] how to judge right from wrong, or good from bad, and how to live moral lives”[2]. The above interpretations are, at first glance, not connected to each other. Science is a process, a system, a way to acquire knowledge about the physical world around us. Science, in its pure form, does not have sides, good or bad, positive or negative. Science, one could propose, is the force of understanding. Ethics on the other hand, is a set of criteria, created by man, to define a guideline to his existence.
A guideline between what should and what should not occur. Hence the question must be transformed into “Should scientists be moral? Do scientists need ethical guidelines, as part of a society, in order to function? ” A step further could be “Under which conditions would a scientific morality be objective? ” There have been many proposals for the creation of a universal code of ethics for scientists. Sir Arnold Wolfendale[3] proposed “I will not, knowingly, carry out research which is to the detriment of humanity.
If, in the event, research to which I have contributed is used, in my view, to the detriment of the human race then I shall work actively to combat its development”. In his statement Sir Wolfendale remains moral to his ethics code by proposing to combat any ill applications of his discoveries. But if we put the above statement in the context of war, society could argue that it would not be ethically ill to apply science against an evil enemy for maters of survival[4], thus Sir Wolfendale’s denial would be unethical towards society. Which ethical values are paramount?
The individual’s or society’s? In modern days there has been a great deal of ambiguity on a number of scientific fields. The advances of science in genetics and molecular biology have created stress between scientists and society. Cloning is one example. A scientist could argue that by pursuing the creation of a living creature through cloning, a major advancement in our understanding of the mechanics behind living organisms could be gained. On the other hand, a large portion of society is against such attempts, often labelling them immoral and unethical.
Again the dilemma, who’s ethics is paramount? The interaction between Ethics and Science can also be examined in another context. In the last years, many scientist have expressed concern about unethical behaviour within the scientific society. Many notable individuals have pointed out that scientists should be more truthful and honest about their findings. That they should be inclined to share their discoveries with the rest of the community, keeping as the paramount goal, the advancement of this community in general.
The reasons for these ethical missteps vary. In most cases the denominator of the problem is the commercialisation of science and the financial battles that lurk in the background. A final point of view that should be considered is the human nature. Humans, over the centuries, have always exhibited several qualities that orbit around the concept of self-interest. Although people would spend huge periods of time philosophising in the virtues of morality every day life teaches different lessons.
People tend to be self-centred, prideful, self-important and indifferent towards the next person. Sir Isaac Newton is one of the most famous scientists and visionaries of the last three hundred years. Nevertheless, he was notorious for his somewhat eccentric behaviour towards other scientists. A preliminary conclusion would have to address the conditions under which an ethical code should be implemented. Science, in comparison with ethics, is a global concept. The scientific community is in essence a global society. Ethics is not!
Ethics depends on the principals and ideas of the society it resides. A vivid example could be derived when one examines the sociological beliefs during the “upper hide” in South Africa. In that society what was write and what was wrong could be differently defined in comparison with London, England. An ethical scientific code would not similar in both countries. Another point which needs to be taken under consideration would be that the ethical code should be self-aware of the conditions under which it’s being created.
An all open scientific society with no boundaries and freedom of exchange of information might be highly noble but would be out of synchronicity with modern reality. This would probably lead to its dismissal. The scientist “lawgiver” must be aware of what is and what is not plausible. If one would suggest that science should detach itself from the market mechanism due to the negative influence, one would find himself outcast. So what is the perfect recipe? What should be included and what should not? Is an ethics code necessary?
If history can teach us something, it is that people throughout the centuries needed guidance in one form or the other. An ethics scientific code is definitely a positive step. But the code has to take into account a’ lot. The core of the code should be science. The code will address the practitioners of science and their actions but should not damage science in the process. Morality is a social issue. Any code is powerless if the society in which it resides does not support and endorse moral values. To summarise an ethics science code is desirable in the context of an active moral society.
