Hippocratic Oath for scientists

Last updated

A Hippocratic Oath for scientists is an oath similar to the Hippocratic Oath for medical professionals, adapted for scientists. Multiple varieties of such an oath have been proposed. Joseph Rotblat has suggested that an oath would help make new scientists aware of their social and moral responsibilities; [1] opponents, however, have pointed to the "very serious risks for the scientific community" posed by an oath, particularly the possibility that it might be used to shut down certain avenues of research, such as stem cells. [2]

Contents

Development

The idea of an oath has been proposed by various prominent members of the scientific community, including Karl Popper, Joseph Rotblat and John Sulston. Research by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) identified sixteen different oaths for scientists or engineers proposed during the 20th century, most after 1970. [2]

Popper, Rotblat and Sulston were all primarily concerned with the ethical implications of scientific advances, in particular for Popper and Rotblat the development of the atomic bomb, and believed that scientist, like medics, should have an oath that compelled them to "first do no harm". Popper said: "Formerly the pure scientist or the pure scholar had only one responsibility beyond those which everybody has; that is, to search for the truth. … This happy situation belongs to the past." [3] Rotblat similarly stated: "Scientists can no longer claim that their work has nothing to do with the welfare of the individual or with state policies." He also attacked the attitude that the only obligation of a scientist is to make their results known, the use made of these results being the public's business, saying: "This amoral attitude is in my opinion actually immoral, because it eschews personal responsibility for the likely consequences of one's actions." [1] Sulston was more concerned with rising public distrust of scientists and conflicts of interest brought about by the exploitation of research for profit. The stated intention of his oath was "both to require qualified scientists to cause no harm and to be wholly truthful in their public pronouncements, and also to protect them from discrimination by employers who might prefer them to be economical with the truth." [4]

The concept of an oath, rather than a more detailed code of conduct, has been opposed by Ray Spier, Professor of Science and Engineering Ethics at the University of Surrey, UK, who stated that "Oaths are not the way ahead". [4] Other objections raised at a AAAS meeting on the topic in 2000 included that an oath would simply make scientists look good without changing behaviour, that an oath could be used to suppress research, that some scientists would refuse to swear any oath as a matter of principle, that an oath would be ineffective, that creation of knowledge is separate from how it is used, and that the scientific community could never agree on the content of an oath. The meeting concluded that: "There was a broadly shared consensus that a tolerant (but not patronizing) attitude should be taken towards those developing oaths, but that an oath posed very serious risks for the scientific community which could not be ignored." [2] Nobel laureate Jean-Marie Lehn has said "The first aim of scientific research is to increase knowledge for understanding. Knowledge is then available to mankind for use, namely to progress as well as to help prevent disease and suffering. Any knowledge can be misused. I do not see the need for an oath". [5]

Some of the propositions are outlined below.

Karl Popper

In 1968, the philosopher Karl Popper gave a talk on "The Moral Responsibility of the Scientist" at the International Congress on Philosophy in Vienna, in which he suggested "an undertaking analogous to the Hippocratic oath". In his analysis he noted that the original oath had three sections: the apprentice's obligation to their teacher; the obligation to carry on the high tradition of their art, preserve its high standards, and pass these standards on to their own students; and the obligation to help the suffering and preserve their confidentiality. He also noted that it was an apprentice's oath, as distinct from a graduation oath. Based on this, he proposed a three-section oath for students, rearranged from the Hippocratic oath to give professional responsibility to further the growth of knowledge; the student, who owes respect to others engaged in science and loyalty to teachers; and the overriding loyalty owed to humanity as a whole. [3]

Joseph Rotblat

The idea of a Hippocratic Oath for scientists was raised again by Joseph Rotblat in his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1995, [6] who later expanded on the idea, endorsing the formulation of the Student Pugwash Group: [1]

I promise to work for a better world, where science and technology are used in socially responsible ways. I will not use my education for any purpose intended to harm human beings or the environment. Throughout my career, I will consider the ethical implications of my work before I take action. While the demands placed upon me may be great, I sign this declaration because I recognize that individual responsibility is the first step on the path to peace.

John Sulston

In 2001, in the scientific journal Biochemical Journal , Nobel laureate John Sulston proposed that "For individual scientists, it may be helpful to have a clear professional code of conduct – a Hippocratic oath as it were". This path would enable scientists to declare their intention "to cause no harm and to be wholly truthful in their public pronouncements", and would also serve to protect them from unethical employers. The concept of an oath was opposed by Ray Spiers of the University of Surrey, an expert on scientific ethics who was preparing a 20-point code of conduct at the time. [4]

David King

In 2007, the UK government's chief scientific advisor, David King, presented a "Universal Ethical Code for Scientists" at the British Association's Festival of Science in York. Despite being a code rather than an oath, this was widely reported as a Hippocratic oath for scientists. [7] [8] [9] In contrast to the earlier oaths, King's code was not only intended to meet the public demand that "scientific developments are ethical and serve the wider public good" but also to address public confidence in the integrity of science, which had been shaken by the disgrace of cloning pioneer Hwang Woo-suk and by other research-fraud scandals. [10]

Work on the code started in 2005, following a meeting of G8 science ministers and advisors. It was supported by the Royal Society in its response to a public consultation on the draft code in 2006, where they said it would help whistleblowers and the promotion of science in schools. [11]

The code has seven principles, divided into three sections: [12]

Rigour

  • Act with skill and care in all scientific work. Maintain up to date skills and assist their development in others.
  • Take steps to prevent corrupt practices and professional misconduct. Declare conflicts of interest.
  • Be alert to the ways in which research derives from and affects the work of other people, and respect the rights and reputations of others.

Respect

  • Ensure that your work is lawful and justified.
  • Minimize and justify any adverse effect your work may have on people, animals and the natural environment.

Responsibility

  • Seek to discuss the issues that science raises for society. Listen to the aspirations and concerns of others.
  • Do not knowingly mislead, or allow others to be misled, about scientific matters. Present and review scientific evidence, theory or interpretation honestly and accurately.

See also

Related Research Articles

The Nuremberg Code is a set of ethical research principles for human experimentation created by the court in U.S. v Brandt, one of the Subsequent Nuremberg trials that were held after the Second World War.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hippocratic Oath</span> Oath of ethics taken by physicians

The Hippocratic Oath is an oath of ethics historically taken by physicians. It is one of the most widely known of Greek medical texts. In its original form, it requires a new physician to swear, by a number of healing gods, to uphold specific ethical standards. The oath is the earliest expression of medical ethics in the Western world, establishing several principles of medical ethics which remain of paramount significance today. These include the principles of medical confidentiality and non-maleficence. As the seminal articulation of certain principles that continue to guide and inform medical practice, the ancient text is of more than historic and symbolic value. It is enshrined in the legal statutes of various jurisdictions, such that violations of the oath may carry criminal or other liability beyond the oath's symbolic nature.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Informed consent</span> Need and process for obtaining subject approval prior to treatment or research

Informed consent is a principle in medical ethics, medical law and media studies, that a patient must have sufficient information and understanding before making decisions about their medical care. Pertinent information may include risks and benefits of treatments, alternative treatments, the patient's role in treatment, and their right to refuse treatment. In most systems, healthcare providers have a legal and ethical responsibility to ensure that a patient's consent is informed. This principle applies more broadly than healthcare intervention, for example to conduct research and to disclose a person's medical information.

The Declaration of Geneva was adopted by the General Assembly of the World Medical Association at Geneva in 1948, amended in 1968, 1983, 1994, editorially revised in 2005 and 2006 and amended in 2017.

Ethical codes are adopted by organizations to assist members in understanding the difference between right and wrong and in applying that understanding to their decisions. An ethical code generally implies documents at three levels: codes of business ethics, codes of conduct for employees, and codes of professional practice.

Medical ethics is an applied branch of ethics which analyzes the practice of clinical medicine and related scientific research. Medical ethics is based on a set of values that professionals can refer to in the case of any confusion or conflict. These values include the respect for autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice. Such tenets may allow doctors, care providers, and families to create a treatment plan and work towards the same common goal. These four values are not ranked in order of importance or relevance and they all encompass values pertaining to medical ethics. However, a conflict may arise leading to the need for hierarchy in an ethical system, such that some moral elements overrule others with the purpose of applying the best moral judgement to a difficult medical situation. Medical ethics is particularly relevant in decisions regarding involuntary treatment and involuntary commitment.

In moral philosophy, deontological ethics or deontology is the normative ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules and principles, rather than based on the consequences of the action. It is sometimes described as duty-, obligation-, or rule-based ethics. Deontological ethics is commonly contrasted to consequentialism, utilitarianism, virtue ethics, and pragmatic ethics. In this terminology, action is more important than the consequences.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Joseph Rotblat</span> Polish physicist (1908–2005)

Sir Joseph Rotblat was a Polish and British physicist. During World War II he worked on Tube Alloys and the Manhattan Project, but left the Los Alamos Laboratory on grounds of conscience after it became clear to him in 1944 that Germany had ceased development of an atomic bomb.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Professional ethics</span> Principles and rules which guide professional activity

Professional ethics encompass the personal and corporate standards of behavior expected of professionals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social responsibility</span> Ethical framework

Social responsibility is an ethical concept in which a person works and cooperates with other people and organizations for the benefit of the community.

Professional responsibility is a set of duties within the concept of professional ethics for those who exercise a unique set of knowledge and skill as professionals.

An institutional review board (IRB), also known as an independent ethics committee (IEC), ethical review board (ERB), or research ethics board (REB), is a committee at an institution that applies research ethics by reviewing the methods proposed for research involving human subjects, to ensure that the projects are ethical. The main goal of IRB reviews is to ensure that study participants are not harmed. Such boards are formally designated to approve, monitor, and review biomedical and behavioral research involving humans, and they are legally required in some countries under certain specified circumstances. Most countries use some form of IRB to safeguard ethical conduct of research so that it complies with national and international norms, regulations or codes.

Archaeological ethics refers to the moral issues raised through the study of the material past. It is a branch of the philosophy of archaeology. This article will touch on human remains, the preservation and laws protecting remains and cultural items, issues around the globe, as well as preservation and ethnoarchaeology.

Secular ethics is a branch of moral philosophy in which ethics is based solely on human faculties such as logic, empathy, reason or moral intuition, and not derived from belief in supernatural revelation or guidance—a source of ethics in many religions. Secular ethics refers to any ethical system that does not draw on the supernatural, and includes humanism, secularism and freethinking. A classical example of literature on secular ethics is the Kural text, authored by the ancient Indian philosopher Valluvar.

Research ethics is a discipline within the study of applied ethics. Its scope ranges from general scientific integrity and misconduct to the treatment of human and animal subjects. The societal responsibilities that science and research have are not traditionally included and are less well defined.

Engineering ethics is the field of system of moral principles that apply to the practice of engineering. The field examines and sets the obligations by engineers to society, to their clients, and to the profession. As a scholarly discipline, it is closely related to subjects such as the philosophy of science, the philosophy of engineering, and the ethics of technology.

Animal ethics is a branch of ethics which examines human-animal relationships, the moral consideration of animals and how nonhuman animals ought to be treated. The subject matter includes animal rights, animal welfare, animal law, speciesism, animal cognition, wildlife conservation, wild animal suffering, the moral status of nonhuman animals, the concept of nonhuman personhood, human exceptionalism, the history of animal use, and theories of justice. Several different theoretical approaches have been proposed to examine this field, in accordance with the different theories currently defended in moral and political philosophy. There is no theory which is completely accepted due to the differing understandings of what is meant by the term ethics; however, there are theories that are more widely accepted by society such as animal rights and utilitarianism.

MBA Oath is a voluntary student-led pledge that asks graduating MBAs to commit towards the creation of value "responsibly and ethically". As of January 2010, the initiative is driven by a coalition of MBA students, graduates and advisors, including nearly 2,000 student and alumni signers from over 500 MBA programs around the world. By formalizing a written oath and creating forums for individuals to personally commit to an ethical standard, the initiative hopes to accomplish three goals:

  1. to make a difference in the lives of the individual students who take the oath,
  2. to challenge other classmates to work towards a higher professional standard, whether they sign the oath or not, and
  3. to create a public conversation in the press about professionalizing and improving management.

This article gives an overview of professional ethics as applied to computer programming and software development, in particular the ethical guidelines that developers are expected to follow and apply when writing programming code, and when they are part of a programmer-customer or employee-employer relationship. These rules shape and differentiate good practices and attitudes from the wrong ones when creating software or when making decisions on a crucial or delicate issue regarding a programming project. They are also the basis for ethical decision-making skills in the conduct of professional work.

Communication ethics is a sub-branch of moral philosophy concerning the understanding of manifestations of communicative interaction.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Rotblat, Joseph (1999). "A Hippocratic Oath for Scientists". Science. 286 (5444): 1475. doi:10.1126/science.286.5444.1475. PMID   10610545.
  2. 1 2 3 Margot Iverson (April 2001). "Should there be an Oath for Scientists and Engineers?". AAAS. Retrieved 3 May 2017.
  3. 1 2 Popper, Karl (March 1969). "The Moral Responsibility of the Scientist". Encounter : 52–56.
  4. 1 2 3 "An oath for scientists?". BBC News. 30 March 2001. Retrieved 17 July 2008.
  5. ↑ Lou Woodley (29 June 2012). "Do scientists need an equivalent of the Hippocratic Oath to ensure ethical conduct?". Lindsay Nobel Laureate Meetings.
  6. ↑ Joseph Rotblat (1995). "Nobel Prize lecture: Remember Your Humanity". The Nobel Foundation. Retrieved 2 May 2017. The time has come to formulate guidelines for the ethical conduct of scientist, perhaps in the form of a voluntary Hippocratic Oath
  7. ↑ Daniel Cressey (12 September 2007). "Hippocratic oath for scientists". Nature . Retrieved 13 July 2008.
  8. ↑ Pallab Ghosh (12 September 2007). "UK science head backs ethics code". BBC News. Described as the scientific equivalent of doctors' Hippocratic Oath, the code includes clauses on corruption, public consultation and the environment.
  9. ↑ Roger Highfield; Nic Fleming (12 September 2007). "'Hippocratic Oath' for scientists proposed". The Daily Telegraph . London.
  10. ↑ David King (20 March 2007). "Rigour, respect and responsibility". The Guardian .
  11. ↑ Donald MacLeod (5 January 2006). "Ethics code seeks to regulate science". The Guardian .
  12. ↑ "Rigour, respect, responsibility: a universal ethical code for scientists". Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. 12 September 2007.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.