by Arthur Petersen, rapporteur

Stating the Problem

The epistemic norms of science must be distinguished from the moral norms of science. The moral norms of scientists and their patrons collectively constitute the “moral economy of science”. Except for ethical issues related to the treatment of animals and humans in research projects, these norms are rarely explicitly discussed, but they have an important influence on decisions made with regard to the research questions dealt with and the use that is made of the knowledge produced. Note that also research done with good moral intentions can have detrimental unintended consequences, which makes clear that studying the possible negative consequences of research is itself a moral duty of scientists.

For example, the potential of dual use of knowledge and technology – applying science to the benefit or detriment of humankind – gives reason for ethical reflection on specific developments in science. While international law in some cases specifies which scientific activities are unwanted, there are as of yet large bodies of science and technology where the moral dimension of the scientists’ work is not regulated by codes of conduct. The duality of science is a very difficult problem: on the one hand, we do not want to miss the benefits, but, on the other hand, in practice the pace of research is so high and the military funding so dominant that the detrimental application is likely to precede the beneficial one (nuclear weapons and nuclear energy constituting a prime example of this risk). Furthermore, it is hard to make a separation between developments that can be judged ‘good’ and those that can be judged ‘bad’. And even if one does make a separation, the influence of individual scientists is limited and funding often determines what research is being done. It is not always transparant to outsiders where funding comes from, which limits the extent to which scientists can be held accountable for their research.

To give another example, some problems important for humanity, especially those impacting on people in developing countries, are under-researched, both in developed and developing countries. Currently, there is hardly a serious dialogue between science and science policy makers, on the one hand, and the public, on the other hand, on the distribution of funds among different areas of science. There can be said to be a social responsibility of scientists to work on problems that benefit (global) society, with society ultimately being the arbiter of what constitute benefits and what research ought to be performed (including research in academic science which is considered to offer a cultural benefit).

Individual researchers currently lack feedback from peers and the public to reflect on whether what they are doing has significant moral dimensions that should be attended to, that is, currently no broad moral review mechanisms are in place.

Institutional Practices: Codes of Conduct and “Ethical Oversight Committees”

In professional practices three kinds of codes of conduct can be distinguished: aspirational, advisory and disciplinary codes. All three kinds have a role to play in promoting responsible behaviour of scientists and typically focus on individual scientists. Aspirational codes, such as pledges of social responsibility, are intended to stimulate reflection on moral issues. In order to perform its function of creating a genuine ethical awareness of scientists, pledges to be taken by students should be voluntary and the texts of these pledges should be decided by the student signing the pledge. Students should be made familiar with several existing pledges and they should discuss the pros and cons of the different texts. In the Working Group it was proposed that International Student/Young Pugwash (ISYP) and the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs initiate a project aimed at stimulating the discussion of pledges within university science curricula.

• Pledges Project
  This project will deliver a list of questions aimed at analysing and developing pledges of social responsibility which can be used as an assignment in university courses for science students. Also a website will be developed which besides the assignment questions will contain resource materials, a variety of pledges of social responsibility, and links. On the website it should also be possible to type and sign one's own pledge. Users can subsequently print out their pledge. For privacy reasons, pledges will be stored without the names of those signing the pledge, but with requested information about age and field of studies. This project, including the data retrieved, will provide a wealth of interesting material for analysis by a PhD student in science, ethics and society.
  

Advisory codes – which were only briefly touched upon in the Working Group – are more specific to the subject area and give more detailed guidance to scientists making decisions. Although such codes can become quite large and will have to evolve continually to keep up with the pace of science, they are good instruments for stimulating discussion on the specific moral dilemmas that scientists are confronted with in their respective practices. Since advisory codes are stronger than aspirational codes and may face less opposition from scientists than disciplinary codes – which include mechanisms for expulsion from organisations – professional associations of scientists are advised to develop advisory codes besides stimulating aspirational codes and cooperating in the formulation of disciplinary codes.

Disciplinary codes are typically the codes policy-makers have in mind when they talk about codes of conduct for scientists. It is important that scientists become more involved in debates around disciplinary codes, since such codes can potentially have a significant impact on scientific practice. A project on disciplinary codes was proposed to be carried out by the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs. This project could enhance the legal framework already in place in different nations.

• Disciplinary Codes Project
  In this project drafts of disciplinary codes of conduct would be prepared using international law, e.g., the NPT, CWC and BWC treaties, as a starting point. Disciplinary codes of conduct will differ between disciplines. In drafting a code for a certain discipline scientists from other disciplines and societal stakeholders should also be involved.
  

Besides professional codes, which are focused on individual scientists, other mechanisms are needed to address moral aspects of scientific practice. For instance, ethical conditions can be included in contracts with research groups. Furthermore, censorship of research results can be used to limit the spread of potentially harmful results, but due to the risks that censorship poses to the quality of scientific work, censorship should only be considered as a last brake. It would of course be better if some research was not performed at all. Therefore there is a need for early evaluations of the ethical implications of research projects. One option here would be the setup of “ethical oversight committees” which investigate possible problems of dual use and might signal potential harmful consequences and – possibly – decide on the initiation or continuation of projects. It is important that such committees also communicate with society at large.

Assigning Responsibilities

In dealing with moral aspects of science a whole web of responsibilities can be identified. Besides the responsibility of individual scientists, the Working Group discussed the responsibilities of research institutes and universities; professional associations; governments; NGOs; industry; media; and citizens. Here only the discussions on issues on scientists' responsibility for interacting with the media and universities' responsibility for ethics in science education are addressed.

Following up on the responsibilities of scientists discussed above (which imply a two-way communication between science and society), scientists should actively engage the public through the media, either by writing popular scientific articles themselves or by cooperating with journalists. For this purpose, university science education should include courses in communication. In order to stimulate good and critical science writing that also addresses ethical issues, the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs could seek cooperation with a newspaper and create an award for science writing on relevant topics. In addition to increased direct interaction with the mass media, a journal project was proposed.

• Journal Project
  This project will establish a journal or make contacts with an existing journal (e.g., the ISYP Journal on Science and World Affairs, which is currently under development) in order to sollicit and publish articles dealing with the ambivalence of science. The journal is supposed to function as a platform for a broad peer review on the potential of harmful consequences of certain scientific developments.
  

It was proposed that universities should offer ethical training to science students, possibly given by science professors in the undergraduate programmes (e.g., through the use of assigments) and by professional ethics, science and society trainers in graduate and postgraduate programmes. Courses dealing with this subject should introduce the ethical dilemmas through case studies, and should not focus on abstract ethical rules. The cases should be critically discussed in groups. The aim of the case study approach is to foster the character of socially responsible scientists. While certainly globally accepted norms exist in the form of international laws, e.g., on chemical weapons development, the formulation of such norms should not be considered as absolute and eternal. The norms may have to be adjusted following the shifting international legal framework. Furthermore, the application of the norms in practice is not always straightforward. In order to show that such an approach to ethics education related to the ambivalence of science might look like, ISYP has started an educational project in cooperation with the University of Copenhagen to offer an international e-course on the Duality of Science. This course may also be used as an example for the new obligatory courses on philosophy of science and/or ethics which will be introduced in Denmark in 2004.

Incomplete List of Other Topics for Further Discussion

Participants

Serge Franchoo (Belgium/Switzerland), Laura Gastellier (France), Julian Hamfjord (Norway), Tom Børsen Hansen (Denmark), Steffen Kappler (Germany/Switzerland), Arthur Petersen (The Netherlands), Arpit Rajain (India), Carsten Rohr (Germany/UK), Dirk Stratmann (Germany/France)