Scientific Knowledge, Ethics and Moral Responsibility

Environmental Geosciences, 1999

Environmental issues have become a concern of American society over the last 25 years. Scientists are responsible for providing impartial information, data, and guidance to the public. However, issues of science have become blurred with issues of public perception, leading decision makers and the public to disregard scientific testimony in the development of public policy. This article traces the early history of the environmental movement and considers elements of a free society in making choices about the future. By using parables and history, it becomes axiomatic that science and scientists must work with the public to balance resource demands with environmental needs for the good of all. Lessons from these parables can be translated into admonitions for scientists to be more forthcoming, to test their work against the needs of society, and to challenge political actions that are not based on good science. Scientists are challenged to be ethical leaders. This article is drawn from the author's presentation at the conference "Meeting Societal Resource and Environmental Requirements into the Twenty-First Century."

Axiomathes 19:417-424 (2009)

2011

Communications - Scientific letters of the University of Zilina

Journal of Education Culture and Society, 2019

This article tackles the problem of social involvement by academics and researchers. The author defines social responsibility widely as the involvement of knowledge, academics and educational institutions in solving the problems of the local community. The concept predicts that this can come about not only by disseminating research results, but also by involvement in pro-social activity without loss of autonomy. The author shows that this can be a way of building trust in science, as well as being a tool in opposing the anti-science culture. It can also be a means of rebuilding the status of science in a world of information bubbles and fake news.

‘Science Agenda – Framework for Action’, a document endorsed at the International Council for Science (ICSU) and UNESCO’s ’World Conference on Science’ in 1999, recommends that ‘the basic ethical principles and responsibilities of science’ be an integral part of the education and training of all scientists and engineers. However, within this document it is not clearly defined what exactly is to be understood by the phrase ‘the basic ethical principles and responsibilities of science’. The aim of this article is to characterise a possible meaning of this phrase, emphasising the academic and social responsibility of individual scientists and engineers. In doing so, a model is presented and used. The model suggests that the ethics of science concerns three interacting levels: a normative level where ethical principles of science are set up, discussed, and justified; an individual level where the ethical principles are translated into responsible actions of individual scientists and eng...

2023

This paper discusses issues of scientific ethics, an important aspect to be studied in relation to the many misuses of scientific knowledge that have been proven to have a negative impact on dehumanization and environmental sustainability. Although at first value-free science has contributed tothe rapid development of science, but later when the application of science spread out, both for good purposes and evil purposes. Therefore, the rules of scientific ethics are very important to be considered in determining the object of research and application of science in society. The discussion begins with the paradox of science (between benefits and threats), the question of whether science should be value-bound or value-free, and finally the ethical principles of science.

Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science IX, Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, 1995

It is generally believed that science is a good thing. (I use the term "science", in this paper, to include not only the natural sciences, but also the social sciences and the humanities.) Many people-and, in particular, most scientists-seem to take it for granted that scientific knowledge is valuable for its own sake. In addition, scientific research has very important social effects, and while some of these are generally held to be bad or neutral, I think the predominant view is that the total impact of science on society is positive rather than negative. After all, we do spend a lot of money on science, and scientists have a lot of prestige in our society. This might be explained by the assumption that most people think that science is valuable. (This ought to be the correct explanation, at least in a democracy.) But is the belief true? Is science, on the whole, good or bad? This is the problem I want to discuss in the present paper. 1 Most people would agree that so far science has had some positive as well as some negative effects. For example, it has given us electricity, which may be used to make our lives more comfortable, but it has also given us terrible weapons, which may one day put an end to our very existence. Einstein once described the situation as follows: Penetrating research and keen scientific work have often had tragic implications for mankind, producing, on the one hand, inventions which liberated man from exhausting physical labor, making his life easier and richer; but on the other hand, introducing a grave restlessness into his life, making him a slave to his technological environment, and-most catastrophic of all-creating the means for his own mass destruction. 2 Most people would accept this statement. However, there may be some disagreement over other alleged effects of science. For example, some people may claim that only certain natural sciences, like physics and chemistry, can have negative effects, and that other sciences (including, in particular, the humanities) have only good effects, in addition to being valuable for 1 This paper partly derives from a talk given in January 1990 to a seminar on "Humanistic Aspects of Scientific and Technological Progress" at the Institute of Philosophy of the USSR Academy of Sciences in Moscow. I am grateful to the participants for many helpful comments. I also wish to thank Hans Mathlein, Torbjörn Tännsjö, and Jan Österberg of Stockholm University for comments on the first written version.

2012

Science, Freedom, and Democracy, 2021

Recent statements of the responsibilities of scientists have strengthened the responsibilities of scientists towards the societies in which they pursue their research. Scientists are now expected to do more than treat their experimental subjects ethically and communicate their results. They are also expected to benefit humanity. In a shift from the predominant views of the second half of the 20th century, social responsibility is now yoked to the freedom to pursue scientific research, rather than opposed to such freedom. First I will describe this change and some of its causes. Then I will address the fact that much of our institutional research oversight infrastructure was put in place with a now-outdated understanding of the societal responsibilities and freedoms of scientists. Finally, I will make some recommendations on how to shift the structures we have to be more in tune with the current conceptualization of scientific freedom and social responsibility.