Science, Art, Litt, Science based Art & Science Communication

Science and moral responsibility

Q: Does science have a moral responsibility to society?

Krishna: Yes! Undoubtedly!

If the people who do science strictly follow scientific method and use science only for the good of humanity, they have fulfilled their moral responsibility.

You cannot separate science from scientists. So here ‘science’ means you can assume the work of people of science.

Scientists doing their work in a lab

(Source: Shutterstock.com)

Social responsibility is an essential part of the responsible conduct of research that presents difficult ethical questions for scientists. Recognizing one’s social responsibilities as a scientist is an important first step toward exercising social responsibility, but it is only the beginning, since scientists may confront difficult value questions when deciding how to act responsibly. Ethical dilemmas related to socially responsible science fall into at least three basic categories: 1) dilemmas related to problem selection, 2) dilemmas related to publication and data sharing, and 3) dilemmas related to engaging society. In responding to these dilemmas, scientists must decide how to balance their social responsibilities against other professional commitments and how to avoid compromising their objectivity (11).

History contains some striking examples of scientists who demonstrated a strong commitment to social responsibility. In 1939, Albert Einstein, at the urging of Hungarian physicist Leo Szilard, wrote a letter to President Roosevelt informing him about Germany’s intent to develop atomic bombs from enriched uranium. Einstein advised Roosevelt to allocate more funds to develop an atomic bomb to counter the threat from Germany. Though Einstein was a lifelong pacifist, he could not ignore the threat to world peace posed by the Nazi regime. After the war, Einstein and other physicists advocated using atomic energy only for peaceful purposes . In 1962, wildlife biologist Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, a book that warned scientists and the public about the dangers posed by overuse of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and other pesticides. Carson’s book helped to launch the modern environmental movement and led to new pesticide regulations. During the 1970s, pediatrician and child psychiatrist Herbert Needleman conducted important research demonstrating the adverse impacts of lead on human development. Needleman informed the public about health hazards of lead and advocated for regulations to ban it as an ingredient in gasoline and household paint (11).

Now too scientists are bringing to the notice of the general public about the perils of plastic and other types of pollution , forever chemicals, global warming, and several other issues that can harm the world (12,13).

Scientists are responsible for conducting and communicating scientific work with integrity, respect, fairness, trustworthiness and transparency, and for considering the consequences of new knowledge and its application, according to the International Science Council (1).

But it is a two way process. You just cannot make only scientists responsible for all the good conduct in this field. Let me explain how scientists are being prevented from carrying out their duties towards the societies they live in. These things have really happened earlier and are happening now also.

For science to progress efficiently and for its benefits to be shared equitably, scientists must be afforded scientific freedoms. This includes individual freedom of enquiry and exchange of ideas, freedom to reach scientifically defensible conclusions, and institutional freedom to apply collectively scientific standards of validity, replicability and accuracy (1).

These freedoms are threatened by attacks on the values of science and through individual cases of discrimination, harassment or restriction of movement. Such threats can be based on factors related to ethnic origin, religion, citizenship, language, political or other opinion, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability or age. Their settings are often complex and it may be difficult to disentangle the scientific, political, human rights or socio-economic aspects of specific cases. CFRS monitors individual and generic cases of scientists whose freedoms and rights are restricted as a result of carrying out their scientific research, and provides assistance in such cases where its intervention can provide relief and support activities of other relevant actors.

For instance, in the US, some scientists there complain that the FOX News tells scientists not to talk about climate science because people who run it don't accept that the man made climate change as a real one!(2). This is trying to make scientists silent on important issues.

Again in the US Wisconsin Agency Bans Talk of Climate Change ( 3). The restriction prevents 10 staff members at the BCPL from communicating about climate change, including about its potential impacts on 77,000 acres of state timberland. Employees are also required to notify the board's three elected commissioners before answering email inquiries about global warming, and a reference on the board's website to the effects of climbing temperatures on invasive forest species was recently deleted. In Canada weather forecasters are banned from discussing climate change ( 4). The Canadian Government banned scientists from speaking to the media about their findings without political clearance in 2006, right after Stephen Harper was elected prime minister(5). The current ban is part of a long process of shutting down research programs that are likely "not in keeping with the Conservative government's agenda," IFL Science reports.The program is not limited to climate issues, or even the environment, but critics have argued that Global Warming is the key target. Since the ban there has been an 80% fall in coverage of Global Warming in the Canadian media, according to leaked Environment Canada documents (6).

Trump Administration Restricted News from Federal Scientists at USDA, EPA. The curbs echo what happened in Canada some years ago. Trump’s administration moved quickly to shore up its control over communications with the public and the press, as officials at the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Agriculture e-mailed staff to inform them that they may no longer discuss agency research or departmental restrictions with anyone outside of the agency—including news media. Both agencies also told their scientists and other staff that press releases and external communications about taxpayer-funded work would stop until further notice. It remains unclear if these will be temporary or long-term policies(7).

And sacking scientists that are doing good work but that go against the local Government's agendas(8) like it is happening in Australia. More than 300 staff are losing their jobs at CSIRO(. CSIRO has long led the world in modelling Southern Hemisphere climate). Oceans and atmosphere unit is losing 74 positions, with hundreds more positions going from the land and water, agriculture, minerals, food and nutrition, and finance units. The climate science losses are happening mainly in Melbourne, Canberra and Hobart, with positions also going in Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia. This has been met with dismay from leading institutions and thousands of scientists around the world who expressed it in multiple letters to the then prime minister Malcolm Turnbull.

The director of the Brazilian agency that monitors deforestation was sacked because he told the truth and clashed with the ex-president of that country (9)! Deforestation is shooting up again in the Brazilian Amazon, according to satellite monitoring data. But Brazil’s far-right ex-president, Jair Bolsonaro, whom many blame for the uptick, has disputed the trend and attacked the credibility of Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research (INPE), which produced the data. Bolsonaro called the numbers “a lie” during a talk with journalists, and suggested INPE Director Ricardo Galvão was “at the service of some [nongovernmental organization].”

His comments triggered a fierce backlash from the scientific community, which feels increasingly under siege from the Bolsonaro administration. “Satellites are not responsible for deforestation—they only objectively record what happens,” says a manifest by the Coalition for Science and Society, a recently formed group of scientists concerned about political developments in Brazil. “Scientific facts will prevail, whether or not people believe in them.” Galvão called Bolsonaro a “coward” for voicing unfounded accusations in public. “I hope he calls me to Brasília to explain the data, and that he has the courage to repeat [what he said] face to face,” Galvão said in an interview with O Estado de S. Paulo newspaper (10).

I can go on and on like this but let me stop here.

And journalists give equal importance to both political opinions and evidence based on data while reporting! Like Aristotle said, "The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal!"

Scientists all over the world are fighting this attack on them. They are being silenced, asked to manipulate data to suit the governments, funds are being curtailed to stop them doing important work. The scientific community, myself included, “Marched for Science” several times to bring this to the notice of the general public. Because the field of science is controlled by governments, billionaires, business (corporate) people, and all the others who are not related to the field. Science is heavily dependent on these for funds.

Scientists and other people of science around the world “Marching for Science”

(Images source: Google Images)

Public should notice this and donate funds to the field of scientific research too and spend money on science and support it like they do to religion, art, and sports and help take away the control of other people from it. We have been asking this for several years but nobody bothers.

People want scientists to find a cure for cancer but don’t take steps to provide funds to work in this field. They don’t ask governments to allot more funds for scientific research to find solutions in the field of basic science.

We are aware of our responsibility toward the societies we live in but unless we get cooperation from the general public, we cannot move forward much. Get this right first.

Can we expect this from now onwards? Please allow us to do science in the right manner, using only the scientific method.

Science and moral responsibility

Replies to This Discussion

Badge

Birthdays

Birthdays Today

Birthdays Tomorrow