Ethics in Science
29/10/2025 Ethics in science - Mark Hocknull
Within science, there are many ethical implications to think about before carrying out any type of experiment. Before undergoing any tests or trials, the agent must decide which theory of ethics is essential for them or for their findings. Ethics introduces the questions of how science can affect society? And, how can the process of producing science be conducted in a morally correct way?
The three theories of ethics
- Kantian ethics relates to moral law. It states that certain duties and peoples’ actions must be morally correct. It’s a facet of Deontological ethics (in which deon(t) refers to the Greek meaning of duty and that which is binding). Beginning from a place of good morals, it looks to have a humanitarian basis.
- Utilitarian ethics concerns itself with maximising results. All actions are considered good, as long as they are positively outweighed by the findings that come from potentially morally questionable research. For example, harming one person or a few people is worth it if more people benefit from the results.
- Virtue ethics centres itself around a person’s character, specifically, the individual(s) carrying out the experiment. It focuses on the person themself instead of the actions that they carry out. Aristotle implies that a virtuous person possesses good qualities which enables them to apply sound judgments in every situation they find themselves in [1].
Virtuous scientist six values
One’s moral righteousness can be determined by the virtuous scientist six values. These include:
- Honesty. It is important that all results are real and any anomalies are included. Falsified results or false data could be detrimental to future research.
- Objectivity. Within ethics, bias can be a large problem because naturally, an experimenter will want to find data or results to backup their hypothesis. This means that it is essential to include other ideas regarding how the findings have occurred or other reasons for what they could represent.
- Tolerance. Scientists form a community. Within this community, there exists a lot of individuals with differing theories while many may possess valuable knowledge and insights into different conjectures.
- Doubt of certitude. Science relies on error. Error allows ideas to be better understood and studied. This suggests that the possibility of error is always present but that the admission of error can be of great significance. If there are faults in the work being published, this could lead to problems in later research or accusations of scientific fraud.
- Unselfish engagement. This is the idea that scientists should pursue their work not for personal gain but for the advancement of knowledge.
- Accountability. All researchers must be held accountable for their own actions and ways in which they conduct their experiments.
Historical Utilitarian research
Previous Utilitarian research has had profound effects for society. For example, Edward Jenner (who created the vaccine), inoculated his gardener’s son (without parental consent) with cowpox. Although the child now had cowpox, this meant he was now protected from obtaining smallpox - which is considered a more serious disease. Is it morally incorrect to introduce a child to a viral disease without parental consent? Objectively, yes. However, the result may have saved his life should have caught smallpox and maybe even died from it. Between 1785-1791, the total number of infant burials was 2,431 compared to that of 1,457 between 1803-1807 [2]. This is an excellent example of how morally wrong research methods can lead to significant scientific advancements.
Another example, involves Nazi medical experiments conducted on Auschwitz prisoners. Josef Mengele was a notorious Nazi doctor who administered a lot of these experiments on twins who were held captive. He looked for genetic differences between twins (and hoped to find genetic weaknesses within Jewish people [3]). His research never came to produce any significant findings. Also, the experiments were completely unethical as no consent was given, many children were murdered and others that survived were intentionally infected with diseases to study the effects.
If scientists would like to conduct research which could affect society (negatively or positively), they should allow society to make an informed decision regarding whether they would like it to go ahead. A researcher is still part of society, they shouldn’t singularly make the decision to perform an experiment which could endanger many lives. Just because you could do something doesn’t necessarily mean you should do it.
References:
[1] J. Livingstone, “Virtue Ethics,” A Level Philosophy & Religious Studies, Feb. 19, 2022. https://alevelphilosophyandreligion.com/virtue-ethics/
[2] R. J. Davenport, J. Boulton, and L. Schwarz, “Urban inoculation and the decline of smallpox mortality in eighteenth-century cities-a reply to R azzell,” The Economic History Review, vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 188-214, Jun. 2015, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ehr.12112.
[3] E. Rugendorff, ”- Didusch Museum,” urologichistory.museum, 2020. https://urologichistory.museum/the-scope-of-urology-newsletter/issue-1-spring-2020/mengeles-experiments
63893
A good report but could speak more about the more modern side including Jan Schon, and talk more about the six values and not just state them.
I believe reference [3] was not spoken about in the seminar but proves you have done some extra research and analysis on this seminar.
Overall good context and layout but consider making the introduction more enticing!
41058
Presentation: There is the name of the speaker, date and title of the seminar. There is good grammar and English but possibility to format it in context to what the seminar is about, like add an introduction to start the blog to give more context on what the blog is about.
Content: There is good coverage of the seminars content. Ethical theories mentioned in the seminar are well explained and also the six values as well. Real life examples mentioned in the seminar were also covered such as Edward Jenner
Context: The societal and research contexts are discussed to a high level, the implications of science on society and the morality within research is discussed. Real life examples have also been linked to the topic of the seminar so they have been using in context.
Style: Written in a way that a wide range of audiences can understand. Any terms that people may not know have been explained.
External Sources: 3 relevant sources have been used and cited. One possible improvement could be trying to directly quote one of the sources.