What is responsible science?

A scientist is a person with lots of knowledge, creativity, innovation, intellectual pursuits, curiosity and if the person really wants to help the world with this powerful combination s/he can be considered as a responsible citizen of the world.

Is this enough?

What really is responsible science? Should we allow 'others' to interfere in scientific research that is taking place around the world now to make it more responsible?

We have, on the one hand, scientists who are convinced that they should be left alone in their ivory tower and that neither politicians nor the general public should interfere with their research activities. In their eyes, the key to conducting responsible science is to protect it from external interest because that will introduce harmful biases. Science should therefore be completely independent and self-regulated in order to be responsible,” says communication researcher Maja Horst from the University of Copenhagen (Ref 1).

And I am not surprised. Most of the scientists are introverts and want to be left alone. They don't appreciate outside interference.
On the other hand there are some scientists who believe that the ivory tower should have an open door so that politicians, public and industry can take part in the development of science. Such engagement is seen as the only way to ensure that science develops in accordance with the needs and values of society, and thereby fulfills its social responsibilities.

Discussions about responsible research are particularly important in light of the fact that entire research areas may be at risk if they are perceived to be irresponsible or controversial.
“Scientists within stem cell research, nanotechnology, or synthetic biology, which is about designing biological organisms, pay a great deal of attention to the way in which their research area is presented in the media and perceived by the public. They all saw how the GMO debate – about research into genetically modified organisms – ended in a deadlock that had serious consequences for robust research projects which simply could not attract funding. No one wanted to be associated with GMO research after the heated debates”, explains Maja Horst and adds: “With a more balanced discussion of the role and responsibilities of scientists and society, we might have avoided the extremely rigid positions, for or against GMO, which dominated the debate.”

                                                        ***************************

My art work related to the topic: ( Title: The choice is yours) from http://www.kkartfromscience.com

(Some people complain that science also brings with it a few bad things like commercial GM crops, nuclear bombs etc. along with the good it does to the mankind. But according to the scientific community – science is like a knife. A knife can be used to cut throats and spill blood. It can also be used for good purposes like cutting fruits and vegetables. It depends on the person who uses it. Likewise science (represented by a test tube in the painting) can also be used for the benefit of living beings as well as for their destruction. Which way it goes is in the hands of the person who uses it. The choice is definitely yours, Homo sapiens.

But this is possible only when the public is well informed)

                                                      *******************************

Scientists working in these controversial areas are sometimes treated as demons and are attacked day in and day out.  Some of the GM related projects have been stopped because of the controversies in this part of the world.  When politicians and industrialists interfered environmental issues have been overlooked here while giving permissions to commercial establishments. Should we allow this happen? Can the media and people behave responsibly so that they can really guide the scientific world?

New technologies are not only creating progress, but they also cause bad side effects. People of science need to address these controversial issues. What scientists are missing in order to be socially responsible is articulated as a kind of self-awareness, an ability to foresee the consequences of their own practice. As long as scientists are not considering how their own practices are affecting society, science cannot be understood as socially responsible. Scientists thus need to make an effort to foresee – or at least discuss – how their research affects their surroundings. They need to be able to look at their own role as part of a bigger society, where actions have consequences at other places and other times. In other words, scientists need to increase their reflexivity, even though it might not be an easy task.

Scientists are human beings too and are not immune to weaknesses. The fear that increasing incidents of fraud and misconduct will lead to an increasing public mistrust in the capability of science to contribute positively to society. In old days when there weren't any rat races or any commercial purposes in pursuing science, pure science for the sake of science - just out of curiosity - to find something new or interpret things through the facts to gain more insights were wide spread and these drove the scientific community then - which I think is the best way to go forward in science unlike the present situations.

As the times have changed, in these stressful situations, scientists now not only need to perform science according to the highest standards of quality, but they should also be able to oversee and reflect on the consequences of their own practice in the societies they live in. Science should be innovative and contribute with knowledge and technologies in order to improve national and regional growth.  According to some, just to do something whether it has any direct benefit or not is misusing public money. Such a wastage has to be stopped. But I think in science every single contribution of information and knowledge counts. It can be used in someway or the other. Nothing in science is a waste. It depends on how you use the knowledge. If you don't know how to use it, it looks like a waste. One has to be creative enough  to connect different things. That way scientific creativity differs from other types of creativity. And only a person of science can understand  and follow this path.

Private funding of science can have tight control over spending the funds but when commercial interests put their fingers in science, that could lead to only certain type of progress. I have observed on crowd funding sites that applied sciences projects are attracting majority of funds while basic science projects - which are very essential for scientific progress don't get much attention. Public perception is really strange. This perception cannot drive the scientific world in the right direction. This is really bad news for science.

But should we give power to a group which is neither trained nor competent to exert it to do this? Should we allow people with limited knowledge to interfere? Should we allow media with bias 'influence people'? Should we allow commercial interests penetrate into the field of science and fund research that suits only their interests?

We had a detail discussion on this topic. I am giving below some of the important points people brought forth in the discussion.

One opinion expressed by a person outside of science : There are two points of frustration for science research remaining under the auspices of responsibility: 1) When the public does not yet understand the potential benefits of the science, but it appears risky, so the science cannot proceed. 2) When the scientist does not yet know the potential benefits of the science; what the next set of questions generated by the research might be; nor the full set of questions the science may answer. So the scientist cannot articulate factors which might contribute to an analysis of risk. The positive being, that they might find out something completely new. The difficulty being, scientific research  does not always start off knowing the full range of answers it might generate, but there is usually a hypothesis to disprove, questions to answer, and with a result, the generation of new hypothesis. All these factors would be covered in the research proposal. With the case of pure research, as opposed to industry lead research, it is hard to be responsible when there is no agreeable reason to proceed, except for the sake of knowledge. But even with insufficient reason to do pure research, this does not provide reason not to do it. The concern might be that the new knowledge might be in some way dangerous. However, responsibility does not occur until the result is applied. And finding new technology, does not mean we have to apply that technology. For example, cloning has been possible for a long time, but this does not mean it is being done adhoc, or without reason. Perhaps one day cloning technology will be used to make new organs, for example for the diabetic who's pancreas does not function as it should.

Another person ( again outside of science ) said: "Politicians and the public play a major role in science because they fund it. That gives them some right to determine what questions are asked.

What they do not have the right to do is to direct what answers come out of the research.

An area where public and political input can be deeply destructive is in the judgement of whether something is "pure" or "applied". Particularly because most people with little knowledge assume that "applied" research is more-effective use of funding.

The reality is largely the converse. "Pure" research can provide a wealth of answers and consequent questions while "applied" research must discard all answers outside the narrow scope of its quest. But try explaining that to a politician, or a tabloid journalist."

One scientist interjected: "Are scientists dumb not to realize the implications of their work on the world outside? Alright human beings are human beings scientists or not. There are checks and balances in the world of science itself to correct these human inadequacies. I think they are enough. We d0n't need outside intervention".

Another opinion of common man: Knowledge sharing cannot happen while scientists are hiding away, and keeping things to themselves. From a scientist point of view, we need to look at the distinction between objectivity and honesty. It is difficult to be honest, when one is being objective and using terminology which does not fit the understanding of others. Honesty actually requires understanding of what the half picture looks like and compensation for that; as well as understanding of what the bigger picture looks like; but also understanding of what the biggest picture looks like. Not forgetting that we are ignorant of the biggest picture.

Well, again arises the Q should the scientific community alone deal with the issues of science? Agreed, politicians, men on the street, commercial bodies and media are either not well versed to deal with issues of science or might be prone to biases because of their affiliations and perceptions. Should they be allowed to participate in the management of scientific research despite all these inadequacies?

They can, provided they are well informed and follow the path of unbiased and humane reasoning. And who can 'inform' them? Again only people of science! What if they manipulate things to get support to their work ? Only an expert in the field can identify the manipulation! So the internal review of scientific world can overcome the difficulties better than outsiders in such situations.

Therefore, first scientists should be trained how to go about doing their work in the right way. Internal mechanisms should monitor these scientific adventures. The research work should be done in a transparent way both with regard to public funded work and private ones . Scientists should also be taught how to communicate their work to the general public.

People of science have to inform the public about the consequences of their work and how to proceed to use their new found information or knowledge for the betterment of the society. Media should take responsibility of projecting the facts in the way they should. Then, after a thorough public debate on the issues between well informed public and the scientific community, only those considered that would benefit the societies and also the scientific world should be accepted as responsible scientific projects. But the final call on any scientific project should always be taken by the scientific bodies.

And manipulation of communication by  commercial,  political and activist bodies has to be stopped. Controversies confuse people. A confused state is not a better one to come to any conclusion. Belief and speculation based arguments should take back seat or avoided. Facts should take precedence and media should project only the facts. If there is a difference of opinion between various scientific bodies when the studies are still going on and the data or information is incomplete to come to a conclusion, the majority opinion should be taken into account to inform the public with a mention of the truth that the studies are still underway and no conclusive answers are available. 

This, I think, is what a really responsible person of science would do.

References:

1. http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1113116079/scientists-disagree...