Ethical Aspects of Science and Technological Innovations

As our society grows ever more complex and technologically based, science is exerting growing influence on our lives. The amazing scientific discoveries of the last hundred years have been turned over to corporate managers, politicians, and government officials as representatives of society. Many of these had no understanding of the potential long-range consequences of their uses of the new technologies resulting from scientific discoveries. We are now having to confront some of the devastating consequences of societal misuses of science and technology. The subject of scientific responsibility has therefore become crucially important to the viability of our earthly life-support systems and the general public welfare. How should the scientist be involved in these issues? What is the responsibility of the scientist for the societal misuse of his scientific discoveries and the technological uses of those discoveries? A system is proposed whereby the scientific professional societies can help scientists assess potential consequences of scientific research and develop alternative responses for dealing with adverse effects. Scientists are called upon to speak out on matters within their expertise where they see dangerous activities being pursued as a policy by governments, corporations, and citizens.

Grappling with ethical issues in environmental studies is notoriously challenging, particularly for those working in the scientific/technical domain. The divide between humanities and science was famously expressed in terms of two cultures by C.P.Snow in his 1959 critique of the prevailing dismissive attitude towards science within Government. An ensuing rebuke to Snow in the 1960s suggested that it was scientists that worked in a moral vacuum. Calls for more responsible science have since become even more urgent with increasing environmental risks. The paper describes a simple adaptable heuristic for professionals coming from a more scientific background to work with ethical issues of environmental responsibility. The heuristic, arising from over fifteen years of experience in teaching environmental ethics to mature part-time study fellows at The Open University mostly from a technical professional background, provides a practical means of bridging the divide between science and humanities. Three recurring and interrelated questions of responsibility are addressed – (i) what matters, in terms of issues, (ii) who matters (and how), in terms of agency, and (iii) why some matters and issues of agency are prioritised over others, in terms of justification. The heuristic can be adapted for dealing with moral issues of responsibility where caring for the environment whilst demonstrating accountability are regarded as important for developing professional and/or personal capacity. Some of the challenges that remain in using such a device for bridging the cultural divide are discussed.

Synthese, 2019

Responsible research and innovation (RRI) features the dialog of science "with society," and research performed "for society," i.e., for the benefit of the people. I focus on this latter, outcome-oriented notion of RRI and discuss two kinds of problems. The first one concerns options to anticipate the future course of science and technology. Such foresight knowledge seems necessary for subjecting research to demands of social and moral responsibility. However, predicting science and technology is widely considered impossible. The second problem concerns moral evaluation. The benefit or harm produced by certain research and innovation achievements is often hard to estimate. Against this background of uncertainty in factual and moral assessment, I explore opportunities left for RRI. First, RRI should contribute to maintaining a wide range of approaches. Second, judgments about RRI should draw on zones of convergence among the variety of research approaches pursued. Third, decisions about implementing a technology should be revisable. Fourth, the more specific inclusion of demands from society should be reserved to technology development. Fifth, in many respects, the social compatibility of a new technology is due rather to the social context than the inherent features of the product. Favorable circumstances are transparency, representation of all relevant parties, and procedural fairness. As a result, some of the benefits and detriments of research and innovation can be identified without detailed knowledge of future findings.

In this essay, I would like to show that while criticizing anthropocentric point of view in his essay, Rajni Kothari shows another example of anthropocentric point of view. (1) Arguments on Development and Sustainability Kothari's argument on what kind of development should be embraced has enlighten the debate from the year 1990 when the paper had published. To begin with, his idea on developing a new ethical imperative instead of avoiding the environmental issues by arguing in favor of technological fix must be underlined. The historical development in the last 28 years, the day paper released till now has shown that without a prior ethical shift, it is not working. While it is not included the article, monetary aspect of the so-called climate programs must be named here. Each year, The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) gathering two times to discuss about the global solution about the climate change and related environmental issues. Mostly, the discussions are monetary related, how will the funds transfer from the global north to south will be managed. (2) Sustainability is the fashionable word of the millennia in the business world. In corporate sense it means that the administrative ranks of the corporation would survive without depending on any person. In economical sense, sustainable growth is generally defined as the continuous trend of the monetary ends. In most cases, the environmental sustainability is an anthropocentric term: The continuous, reliable exploitation of the natural resources without finishing those and not causing an industrial crisis by the lack of them. Kothari, on the other hand, suggest that the environment should not be sustained because of the potential exploitation value but its own value itself. Trees shouldn't be preserved to turn into paper later but to keep its natural rights as it is. Starting from " The Causes of World Crisis " part of the article, Kothari argues that contemporary human condition is one of the deepening crises. This view must be refuted before going further and the conclusion. Human history is full of crisis and historical texts shows that people who lived then took those seriously. Accordingly, research has shown that the black plague crisis was because of the climate shift happened in China, which leads the genetic mutations and

Novel Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 2024

Despite the many benefits and blessings that were made possible by the advancement of science, the grave consequences of the advancement of scientific knowledge cannot be overlooked, including for example the pollution of the earth and its atmosphere, centralisation and the diminished role of individuals and the uniformity and the disappearance of local cultures. The dilemmas that face scientists are threefold: the dependence of scientists and scientific research on men of power, free enquiry and academic freedom and sharing and publication of scientific information. Science: A Blessing or a Curse? Has science been a blessing to mankind? Or has it been a curse? Many thinkers and scientists believe this to be an open question.