The Ethics of Science
Have you ever disagreed with someone about what the right thing to do was? Or found yourself in a situation where telling a lie seemed more reasonable than telling the truth? Our morals influence the choices we make every day, but they also play a significant part in shaping the ethics that guide scientific research. This connection between personal beliefs and professionalism was the focus of Mark Hocknull’s seminar, “The Ethics of Science,” given on Wednesday, 29th October.
Hocknull describes ethics as a branch of philosophy that helps us consider if our actions are right or wrong, and if our motives for these acts are good or bad. But having a globally accepted set of morals is almost impossible with changing values and different opinions in cultures. Karl Marx suggested “the moral ideas that occur in a society are therefore not random but rather reflect the needs of its economy” [1].
Take Edward Jenner’s discovery of vaccination as example. By deliberately giving a child cowpox and exposing him to smallpox afterwards, he discovered a medical breakthrough that the child was immune. This is what lead to modern day vaccinations. An approach like this is considered highly unethical, but was his judgement clouded by the desperation to find a way to prevent smallpox, a highly deadly disease? If we know an unethical procedure will have a great benefit, does that make it morally right? Ethics is not an exact science, more so it is based on reason and compelling argument.
In science, there are three major ethical theories in philosophy that have an influence on our understanding of ethics: Kantian, Utilitarian and Virtue Ethics. Kantian is the idea that doing the right thing is a matter of following reasonable rules correctly, conforming to the moral law.
Utilitarian ethics is more calculated, where right and wrong is a matter of cost benefit analysis. If an action results to an increase in happiness, it is seen as good. With this logic, you could argue the murder of a person is morally justified if it benefits more people. This theory can easily spark disagreements, since there is the opportunity to try and justify wrong actions by claiming the cost benefit analysis says there will be a positive outcome, quickly becoming counterintuitive to the principle of ethics.
Virtue Ethics shifts the focus on the person carrying out the action as opposed to the action itself. Ethics is about being able to develop the right sort of character and possess good qualities, so why wouldn’t the person be the focus? When it comes to being virtuous, Hocknull then proposes 6 main values that a virtuous scientist ought to embody: honesty, objectivity, tolerance, doubt of certitude, unselfish engagement and accountability. While there is no globally agreed consensus on what the main values are, these form a strong foundation that can be easily reasoned for ethical behaviour in science.
The importance and consequences of ethics in science is clear when we look at examples in the real world. Consider Daniel Bolnick, who published a paper in Ecology and soon retracted it after realising there was an error; this was a brave and honest act that helped demonstrate his transparency and build the trust others had with him. On the other hand, Jan Schon falsified results in semiconductor research and subsequently lost his career and reputation. Cases like these highlight why moral laws are in place, protecting the integrity of both science and the researchers carrying it out.
As time goes on, debates over ethics will always remain with advancing sciences, like human genome editing. Should we alter our children’s genes to prevent genetic disorders? This raises two sides of “maximising human well-being” and “respecting human differences” [2]. While future generations would benefit, at what point is society no longer being accepting to who people are? Ultimately, it is how we act and reason our motives that will continue to define us as scientists and as a society.
[1] C. Bennett, “What is this thing called Ethics”, 2nd ed., Taylor & Francis group, Oxon, UK, 2015
[2] M. L. Page, “The ethics issue: Should we edit our children’s genomes?”, NewScientist, 5 Jul. 2017, [Online] Available: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23531330-700-the-ethics-issue-should-we-edit-our-childrens-genomes/
62557
1) The title of the talk, date, and name of the speaker was hard to find but it is in the first paragraph. However the blog does not have a title. The overall grammar of the talk is good and i have no problems with it. (2/3)
2) This blog understands the main point of the talk. This is very well understood and well fleshed out but could be explained better. (2/3)
3) The contextualisation for the research topic is very well put together for both society and research. (3/3)
4) Additional assessment of findings using external sources has been shown because this blog report has a direct quote Karl Marx. Could do with more references. (2/3)
5) The writing style is appropriate for a lay of audience and can be uinderstood well from anyone without a scientific background. (3/3)
Overall score - (12/15)
Very almost a perfect blog but could do with some tweeks.