|
Manning Clark House Symposium
Science and Ethics: Can Homo sapiens Survive?
Canberra, 17-18 May 2005
The Role of Science in Societies, including Ethics in Science and
Ethical Responsibilities of Scientists
Conference paper by David H. Green FAA FRS
Professor-Emeritus, Research School of Earth Sciences, The Australian
National University
So that we are on common ground, let me say how I am using key words.
Science
The systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and
physical universe, based on observation, experiment and measurement.
The knowledge so obtained and the practice of obtaining it.
Ethics
The study of standards of right and wrong, that part of science and
philosophy dealing with moral conduct, duty andjudgment.
- Formal or professional rules of right and wrong
- Moral principles by which a person is guided.
I will turn now to the roles of science in society and deal with that
in two parts, which are continuous, without sharp boundary: expressing
human curiosity and problem-solving. We can call the two roles ‘pure
science’ and ‘applied science’ but almost every scientist
is contributing to both and motivated by both human characteristics.
Curiosity is a human attribute; an essential aspect of our minds and
the interaction between our inner selves, our minds, and the eternal
world. We see curiosity in a child and we see different attitudes and
behaviours of parents and adult society which either encourage and stimulate
that attribute of curiosity OR limit, restrain, control and dampen innate
curiosity. If we have come here today thinking that Science is moving
too fast and too far and society must control or limit science, then
I suspect that we have to start with our children and grandchildren
and ‘forbid’ curiosity---and I would reject that approach
vehemently.
We are aware, if we think about it, that some societies, past and present,
encourage curiosity; others regard it as dangerous, subversive and disruptive
of good order. Since the 16th century, European societies
and western democracies have strongly encouraged curiosity – but
both behaviours continue to exist among national cultures and in the
diversity of our own society.
‘It has been said that the scientist is like a dog, sniffing in
aimless ecstasy at a thousand trees and hedges’.
But science is much more than curiosity – the observing, measuring,
analyzing – and the accumulation of facts. A catalogue of facts
is no more science than a pile of bricks is a house – but the bricks
are essential and they must be good bricks, not flawed or misshapen.
Science aims to discover:-
what order there may be in nature
the relationships and the cause and effect links between events and
processes.
simple generalities which apply to complex systems and allow predictability.
Science also aims to test, to verify or falsify its own generalizations.
It is experimental. It seeks insights, which are often startling in
their simplicity. These insights do not come from simple collecting
of measurements and observations but are stimulated by what has gone
before and are, at the break-through point, strongly intuitive and akin
to artistic achievement – "it fits the picture beautifully".
An ‘insight’ must proceed via formulation as a testable ‘hypothesis’,
a ‘model’ and ‘theory’ and if sufficiently general,
may be called a ‘law’ or ‘rule’ – the scientific
community provides both the incentive and the testing grounds for the
‘insight’ to ‘law’ progressions.
So with that introduction, I can seek to
describe science more fully.
Science is a Process – describing, classifying, analyzing
and predicting the natural world – independent of the personality
or prejudices of the observer.
Science is a Community, governed by an ethical framework. This
community of scientists cannot function unless there are basic ethics
in the conduct of science – this aspect is at the core of this
discussion and I will return to it.
Science is a Product – it is published knowledge (public
knowledge) including both the agreements and the debates of the scientific
community. The process of peer review is an essential element in publication.
The linking of research, teaching and application is also essential
in refreshing and renewing the "Product’. ‘Teaching’
without a link to research and curiosity is dull and uninspired and
‘Research’ without the stimulus and challenge of questioning
student minds becomes narrow and risks becoming irrelevant.
The emphasis on agreed knowledge, on peer review and the need to link
teaching and research leads to recognition that scientific knowledge,
the product, is partial, always changing and is open to test, to addition
or even disproof and rejection.
Let me now focus on the ethical basis of science. What ethical or moral
principles must I as a scientist observe in my work and what can, and
should, I expect from my colleagues in this international science community,
First ‘Honesty’ – without it genuine communication
in science is impossible. It must be a habit, fro recording of the first
experiment to publication of the breakthrough paper..
Honesty (Truthfulness) is a fundamental ethic in science
Second, ‘Universalism’ – science is independent
of colour, race, language, or creed of scientists. It is international
and crosses religious, ideological and economic barriers.
Third, ‘Community/Sharing’ 0r Communalism – it
is not a solitary activity but is shared knowledge. The corollary is
also respect for others and their work. Peer review and publication
are essential and plagiarism is destructive.>
Fourth, ‘Personal detachment/Disinterestedness’ –
the scientist should not be emotionally or egotistically attached to
his or her data or interpretations. This is perhaps the most difficult
of the ethical principles–we can acknowledge that we stand on the
shoulders of our teachers and even encourage our students to stand taller
on our own shoulders. However it is more difficult if a colleague or
student stands on our toes, or sees flaws in the seminal work we did
some time ago. A degree of detachment and humility is required within
the scientific community.
Fifth, ‘Organised Scepticism’ – the individual
scientist accepts nothing on the word of ‘authority’. It is
a peculiar form of scepticism – it is not negative or cynical but
a positive questioning – a dissatisfaction and will to know more.
These ethical imperatives are not strange to us – if we seek parallels
in behaviours in the broader society, we would use words like:
- Honest
- Unprejudiced
- Unselfish
- Tolerant
- Self-reliant
and these are consistent with and derived from our Christian heritage,
and I understand, central to other major religions and to a humanist
reference frame. They are extolled by our leaders and continue to underpin
multicultural Australia. (cartoon) However they can sit very
uncomfortably in some cultures and in our own, if authoritarian, or
fundamentalist, or over-riding ‘national interest’ restrictions
are brought into play.
Speaking personally for a moment, I was for three years the external
examiner in Earth Sciences, at Sultan Qaboos University in Oman –
a beautiful campus and a university which certainly sought to measure
its teaching against international standards. Two anecdotes illustrate
the working out of tensions between ethics of science and ethical issues
in the broader national culture.
An Omani woman, lecturer in chemistry and having a UK PhD in marine
biochemistry, was not permitted to do her own research collecting for
which her scuba-diving experience fitted her. She was addressing this
restriction with energy and determination, with her husband’s support.
Similar cultural taboos however ensured that women were well represented
among medical students, avoiding the male domination in western societies
in this profession.
I also witnessed the tensions between two staff polarized on the extent
to which problem —solving and critical thinking were assessed in
examination rather than rote-learning and multiple choice questions.
Both protagonists were from Muslim counties and both had western PhDs.
Since the students were Omani and preferred the rote-learning approach
familiar from schooling, the protagonist upholding the scientific ethic
and rejecting plagiarism, lost his job, but not his scientific integrity.
My point is that science is a community adhering to an ethical model
and its ethical principles may challenge those of authority or powerful
interest groups in society. Science can be a Trojan Horse, for ethical
values to penetrate cultural or national barriers but this is only effective
if science remains true to its ethical base. In our society, some
scientists challenge literalist and fundamentalist thinking in religious
groups and equally in fundamentalist environmental groups – other
scientists place the end above the means and the ethics of science are
subverted.
For Science, I have described an ethical model which is idealistic
and when we turn from curiosity-motivated science to problem-solving
science then it is very clear that the ethical model may not apply.
Science may include research which has objectives to control, to adapt
to or change the natural world or to add to or modify the natural world
by manufactured or designed products. This ‘Applied Science’
employs most scientists, costs most money, has most easily identified
economic return, drives change, solves problems, gives military or economic
advantage, creates opportunities, etc. It is often very difficult to
apply the ideal ethical model to such science.
The principle of honesty remains but confidentiality or secrecy for
reasons of commercial, defence, health, environmental objectives will
ensure that the principles of universalism, community, sharing of knowledge
are NOT observed. The ‘product’ may not be ‘published
knowledge’ and the scientists is clearly part of attaining a defined
object, possibly set by government but also set by other interest groups.
This area of science may be, or may be seen to be, allied with a particular
power or interest group – it can lose public trust and respect.
This part of the science spectrum is most ‘managed’ and the
‘performance measures’ relate not to scientific knowledge
itself but to the defined objective – whether it be a new pharmaceutical,
a new software program, or an improved energy efficiency. Many of the
topics of following speakers are within ‘Applied Science’.
The view of the Pure Science end of the spectrum from the perspective
of those managing applied science can be very critical – inefficiency,
poor goal-setting, lack of measurable output commensurate with time
and money invested – scientists in this view, clearly need stronger
management.(Cartoon)
For many people, there is thus a real problem with science because
its power to change things is so great and it is continually throwing
up dilemmas of choice, many with strong ethical impact:-
- ethics of animal experimentation
- ethics of non-vegetarian diets
- ethics of contraception
- ethics of overpopulation
- ethics of genetic manipulation
- ethics of pesticides & genetic engineering
- ethics of nuclear energy use
- ethics of nuclear medicine therapies.
I have tried to show that science has a very strong ethical basis and
that its self-managing and self-correcting mechanisms give a high level
of confidence. Codes of Practice in Research, review and reward systems,
the National Academies of Science and Professional and Learned Societies
are all healthy effective measures to ensure the ethical conduct of
science itself.
BUT the title of the Conference, and the titles of many of the
talks to come are not as optimistic as the picture which I have painted.
They imply threats from science-led change or even, as in Phillip Adams
title, that Science is today’s Pandora, opening the Box and releasing
all the evils and miseries on an innocent world. Alternatively, is Science
the Forbidden Apple of the Garden of Eden? – and Eve, not Pandora,
caused the problems.
So let me state where I stand. There was no Heaven of the Greek Gods,
no Garden of Eden, no innocent and idyllic past. Science is not taking
us to doom and destruction. Creation is ongoing, incomplete, and Homo
Sapiens is part of it, perhaps its high point, but also the "Strange
Creature" of Michael Leunig’s cartoons. Most importantly,
Homo Sapiens has the power and the responsibility to shape much of the
Earth – a very small part of the Universe but as our program says,
‘Good Planets are Hard to Come By". I stand within the Christian
tradition but also with that part which reconciles faith and science,
and with many philosophers of science and theologians, sees Good within
the Universe and within human experience, indefinable but sensed and
partially understood in all the major religions.
I would vote ‘Yes’ to both the Can? And Will? Humanity Survive?
Questions and assert that Science is a very practical aid to that survival.
Let me give reasons for my answers and through those reasons illustrate
the working out of the ethical responsibilities of scientists.
Two weeks ago in this building I attended the Annual General Meeting
of the Australian Academy of Science, Medals were presented, 16 New
Fellows of the Academy were elected, etc. The Australian scientific
community expressed its value judgements identifying the highest achievers
of Australian science. The new Fellows and prize winners presented brief
summaries of their work. Anyone attending could not fail to be impressed
by the remarkable diversity, the narrow specializations BUT the common
thread – the value of the research to the wider community and the
setting of each highly specialized topic in the context of a problem
to be solved. This was Homo Sapiens not just surviving – but enhancing
life and ameliorating problems: Let me list some:
- Improving grain crop adaptation to drought and salinity
- Genetic factors in epilepsy
- Rust resistance in plants
- Bacterial resistance to antibiotics
- Inhibitors for cancer and inflammatory diseases
- Malarial parasite – a potential means of destruction
- Managing nature conservation – what extinctions can we prevent?
- Improving weather and climate prediction
- Physics of bubble collapse – a new chemical micro-reactor.
- Earliest life on Earth – when, what and how?
- Creating new computer imaging
- Flotation – bubbles at work.
The conclusions I draw:
Science as curiosity is self-organizing but because scientists
are part of the community (they have parents, spouses, children) an
unwritten but implied contract exists – scientists practice an
ethical responsibility to seek new knowledge that will benefit the community,
both present and future.
Secondly, insofar as science is self-managed and independent (and I
believe that Academies and Learned Societies jealously guard that characteristic)
then the Science Establishment rewards those whose work is of benefit
to the community, as well as highly innovative. I should add that the
names, faces and accents of awardees testified that the scientific community
was enacting its principles of universalism and communalism
The special theme of the Academy’s Annual Meeting was ‘Stem-cell
Research" – a subject which impinges on fundamental questions
of genetics, of beginnings of individual life, of ‘what is life’,
‘who we are’, what is the ‘natural order’ and what
is ‘intervention’ in ‘nature’.
The issues are complex and they also relate to strong beliefs. Decisions
need to be made and the subject illustrates the roles of local and National
Ethics Committees, of regulation or legislation, or not. Speakers addressed
science, applications and ethical issues. What did I draw from this
on the ethical responsibilities of scientists?
In many areas, there is a need to inform the wider community in research
directions and outcomes – this is a two-way street as the corollary
is for the wider community, and particularly vocal pressure groups taking
pre-emptive positions, to seek and respond to the information. In medical
research and in research involving radiation, Ethics and Safety Committees
are in place in University and publicly-funded research.
The essential purpose of such consultative committees is the building
of trust, the setting of policy in an open forum and the avoidance of
legalistic or risk-averse behaviours. We should note that there are
ethical consequences of not approving a research technique or
a particular research case, just as there are consequences of approving.
Trust building between researchers and the wider community is a responsibility
in which all researchers have a part. I have one more point on ‘Risk’
since ‘Reducing Risk’ is one reason advanced for fencing scientific
research and, attached to the ‘Fear’ card, is currently used
for increased surveillance, management, and secrecy. Many of you may
have seen the program called ‘Super-volcano’ on ABC a few
weeks ago. I can tell you that the science was good, the scenario and
outcome realistic. The Boxing Day Tsunami illustrated the scale of a
geologically based but relatively small natural disaster and ‘Super-volcanos’
have erupted within the experience of Homo Sapiens – who survived
them. In considering potential for human-induced disasters – nuclear,
epidemic, climate – we need to be aware that global scale disasters
can be caused by natural processes – homo sapiens is ‘at risk’
and in considering that risk we may like to distinguish between species
destruction and society destruction.
The film plays out the roles of scientists vs those of politicians
very well – including the ethical responsibility of scientists.
I turn now to real life — Usu Volcano in Hokkaido, Japan erupted
in 2000 with a major eruption in part directly on roads and communities
and adjacent to medium-sized towns. The processes of monitoring, warnings,
collaboration between scientists, civic and provincial authorities and
response of citizens led to the evacuation of 12,000 people, no loss
of life, major loss of property and no litigation for loss of income,
property, etc.
The lesson from this is the foundation of communication, round-table
dialogue and planning among scientists, civic authorities and citizens
which was laid down over years in preparation for such an event. The
responsibilities of the scientists extended from their expertise to
collaborations and participation in the affected community. A culture
of open-ness, community responsibility and respect for technical knowledge
must be embedded in our society if ‘risks’, whether natural
or human in origin, are to be managed.
I will take one final example. The March 2005 issue of Physics Today
notes that current expansion and growth of nuclear power generation
is in Asia. 20 of the last 29 reactors to be connected to national power
grids are in East and South Asia and of 31 under construction world-wide,
18 are in India, Japan, S.Korea, China, Taiwan – in the USA none
has been ordered since 1978. Whatever anxieties we have about nuclear
power generation, it is with us and it is an alternative to fossil-fuel
energy sources with their known pollution and inferred risks. What is
Australia’s role? We are a significant supplier of uranium concentrates
and profit from that. We are a respected participant in IAEA and a signatory
to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. We are responsible citizens
in the supply of nuclear fuels BUT have elected to go no further in
the refining, enrichment, energy generation and waste-disposal aspects
of the nuclear industry. If this is a global issue – and
a number of following speakers state that it is, then what is
Australia’s ethical and responsible role?
At this point, we lack the leadership, the political will and the national
acceptance of responsibility to safely dispose of low level radioactive
waste – that waste produced in medical, research and
industrial use of nuclear technologies. It would be a heartening and
‘easy’ example if the leadership of environmental movements
committed to a technically-based, round-table approach to solving this
problem. It is also possible, but admittedly not currently practical,
to see an Australia which had the confidence in the stability and responsibility
of its governments, in the technical expertise of its industries, in
the rationality of its political and civic leadership, and in the stability
and suitability of its geology, to openly debate the return to Australia
for safe disposal, of high level radioactive wastes. If we are serious
about minimising risks attached to nuclear power generation, or serious
about disposal of nuclear weapons, we might consider being serious about
nuclear waste disposal, a global problem, requiring global solutions.
The conclusion I draw from the examples;
Hard choices with global impacts, now and in the future, are being
made. There is an extraordinarily sterile and demonstrably wrong view,
that ‘the market’ must be the guide for these choices. Other
speakers will address the concept of continual economic growth and its
role as a measure of human well-being. The ethical responsibilities
of scientists include:
Consider possible applications and impacts (cartoon)
Are there ethical concerns, within or outside guidelines
Exercise maximum open-ness and consultation in research
Engage with appropriate professional, management and community organizations
Avoid misappropriation to a ‘cause’ but engage with the
political process (without loss of the ethical basis of the scientific
community)
(It is better to be abused, then used, by a fundamentalist group
or an irresponsible corporation.)he possible applications and impacts
of the research
The survival of Homo Sapiens depends fundamentally on the extent to
which ethical values – the values of the Church, the Temple, the
Mosque, the Shrine, the parent to the child – are lived out.
The ethical basis of science and its methods and products are supportive
and an aid to survival, whether global disaster were to be natural or
man-made. If we leave the future to the values of the market place,
the battlefield, or the fortress or citadel then we place the survival
of Homo Sapiens at increased risk. The scientific process and products
can be compelled or seduced to serve the market, the defence/aggression
of a society, or the exclusiveness and separation of an elite. An open,
democratic society in which political leadership practices honesty,
consults widely, and exercises compassion will find science serves its
most creative visions.
By making our World into
a market place
a battlefield
a fortress
we profane that which is sacred and for which we have a duty of care.
Our task remains to treasure Temple Earth for its true purpose.
REFERENCES
- Cloud, Preston, 1978, Cosmos, Earth and Man. Yale University Press
- Borg, Marcus J, 2003, The Heart of Christianity. Harper, San Francisco
- Davies, Paul, 1998, The Fifth Miracle. Penguin Press Australia.
- Hanbury-Brown, R., 1979, Science and Faith. Current Affairs Bulletin
57, No. 7.CSIRO.
- Leunig, Michael, 2002, Strange Creature. Penguin Group, Australia.
- A.S.T.E.C.(Australian Science and Technology Council), 1984, Australia’s
Role in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle. Australian Government Publishing Service,
Canberra
|
