The social responsibility of scientists has been a central topic on the Pugwash agenda since the first Conference in Pugwash, in 1957. Indeed over a period of thirty or forty years there has been a major change in the attitude of scientists towards public discussion of ethical issues. Nowadays, the noteworthy feature of Pugwash is that it provides a forum for collaboration between social and natural scientists, while retaining the methodology of the natural sciences.

The present world goes through parallel and contrasting processes of globalisation (no country alone is responsible for scientific research) and fragmentation. The research is being privatised in certain areas (biotechnology for example), the researchers are not so free in private firms as compared as in public institutions, and therefore their sense of responsibility may diminish.

The threat of global destruction seem more remote, and therefore the issue of the scientists' responsibility is not so prominent as in the case of the development of nuclear weapons. However, smaller arms are being developed, such as non-lethal weapons or arms which cannot be defined as weapons of mass destruction although they may inflict enormous damages, or chemical or biological weapons. Moreover, we are thus faced with a daunting dilemma. As part of cultural evolution, science should be allowed to develop freely, with no restrictions put on it. But can we afford the luxury of uninhibited research-which may lead to an even greater potential for total destruction-in a world in which war is still a recognized social institution?

The pace of advances is science is such now that applications follow very soon fundamental research. Indeed, practical applications often follow immediately after scientific discoveries, and are often pursued by the same people. Science is changing rapidly, not only in its research techniques and organisational structures but also in its relationships with society at large. Science becomes more closely embedded in society and these changes reveal ethical dilemmas which could previously be glossed over.

All these new developments make necessary a renewed thinking on ethical criteria for scientific activities. The fact that many scientists and other professionals continue to subscribe to a belief in the value-neutrality of science, and deny that the introduction of new insights and technologies inevitably has a social impact, forms a considerable obstacle to the establishment of ethical and moral norms. Even where potential negative effects cannot be denied, the argument of 'neutrality' is often heard. This is moreover encouraged by the increasing disciplinary specialisation.

Traditional modes of ethical analysis cannot deal adequately with the values, norms and interests activated by present-day technoscience without reference to its sociological, political and economic dimensions. Each community, each country, as well as the world community have the responsibility to understand the ethical issues at stake and implement means to control the scientific activities and their potential negative outcomes. Developing new ethics norms should be the result of a multilateral stand of responsibility: that of the scientific community with respect to other values present in the society, and those of other social institutions (economic, political, religious, etc.) with respect to the rights of science.

The increasing gulf between the public and scientists is a threat to the support of science, to rational discussion of scientific issues in the public debate and policy making There is a need to have a much more interactive process of communisation between scientists, the policy makers and the public. The vast whole of problems raised by the communication with various publics, of the objectives and results of a scientific research should constitute a large chapter of the ethics of the work of science. There is a real need to work out an ethics of scientific information. It required there to develop an informative democracy, because science needs also to become, in adapted forms , appropriable by all, so that the knowledge is raised in culture. The whole of the citizens has right to this knowledge and this culture. It is therefore most important that science improves its public image, that it regains the respect of the community for its integrity, trust in its pronouncements.

Scientists should address the larger context of their work and, at the same time, they should create or re-create the conditions to practice their social responsibility.