The Moral Responsibilities of Science in Society: A Qualitative Investigation of Scientists’ Attitudes

The Moral Responsibilities of Science in Society: A Qualitative Investigation of Scientists’ Attitudes Bruce Small - AgR Towards STS Networking in the Asia-Pacific Region Conference 1-2 Dec 08

Introduction • Science and technology provide many morally good outcomes for humanity • But, S&T are also causal antecedents of looming global crises – morally bad outcomes – either accidentally, incidentally, or malevolently (Small & Jollands, 2006) • Promethean technology – use depends on full range of human nature (Small & Jollands, 2006) • In an age of Promethean technologies, what are the moral responsibilities of science and scientists to society

Research Aim • To investigate scientists’ attitudes and beliefs about their moral responsibilities to society with regard to scientific research and technological development

Method • Unstructured interviews • Research approved by UoW ethics committee • Informed consent, signed by participants • Face-to-face interviews • 1-2 hours, conducted in participants’ work offices • Both interviewee and interviewer free to raise or discuss any issue within topic • Issues (or aspects of) discussed varied across interviews • Interviews digitally recorded and transcribed • Empirical ethics (Borry et al., 2007; van der Scheer and Widdershoven, 2004)

Interview Sampling Strategy • Purposive (not random) • Homogeneous group • scientists with working focus on molecular biology (gene technologies) • Maximal variation (n=10) • variety of specialist areas, both genders, age, range of attitudes to gene technologies • Snowball (n=12)

Participant - demographics • 22 NZ scientists working in CRIs or universities • 12 males, 10 females • Age range: 26-60, mean = 44, SD = 8.8yr • Field of study: mean = 15.3yr, SD = 8.6yr • Disciplines (self-described): • plant molecular biology, animal molecular biology, evolutionary molecular biology, soil science, entomology, ecology, economics, animal reproduction, microbiology, animal physiology • Current employer: mean = 10.3yr, SD = 9.1yr • Education: PhD = 21, MSc = 1

Researcher Positionality • AgR employee – 8yrs as a psychologist and bioethicist (participant observer) • Previously conducted research into public and scientists’ attitudes to biotechnology • Philosophical orientation to research • Pragmatism (e.g., Morgan, 2007; Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005) • Physical world mostly ‘Real’ • Social world mostly ‘Constructed’ • Realism and social constructionism both contain elements of truth for both the physical and social worlds but alone each is inadequate • Action research • Points of research subjectivity: • Investigative topic • Data collection • Data analysis and synthesis • Knowledge co-created by interviewees and researcher

Analysis • Thematic analysis (Boyatzis, 1998; Braun and Clarke, 2006) – interpretive process • Identify and select relevant text extracts • Develop codes to identify and describe patterns • Collate codes to form higher level themes • TA independent of ontological and epistemological perspective (Braun & Clarke, 2006), consistent with pragmatic philosophical approach • Inductive (data driven) analysis, manifest and latent themes

Results: Thematic Map – Main Themes and Sub-themes Scientific Social Responsibility Engagement Doing Good Compliance Informing society Becoming informed Democratisation Knowledge Technology Foresighting Laws & regs Scientific norms Business norms Societal norms Personal Values

Thematic map: Doing Good Doing Good Through Science (right vs wrong, benefit vs harm) Knowledge Technology Foresighting • Moral status • Intrinsic value • Value free • Purpose • Dangerous or forbidden • Moral status • -Intrinsic value • -Purpose • Dual use • -Forbidden A scientist’s social responsibility Case-by-case Precautionary Informing society

Doing Good 1: A Moral Imperative • The majority of participants believed: • “Science has a responsibility to do public good” (#13) • “Science should be done for the good of the greater world population” (#2) • “Scientists have a responsibility to do public good. A lot of research is funded by the taxpayer” (#15) • “I have a desire to do some sort of good for the community” (#8) • “Why would you not want to do public good?” #17) • “Scientists tend to be very ethical… they are there because they are interested in humanity, in solving things and problems to make things better” (#6)

Doing Good 2: Distributive Justice • However, issues were raised about the distributive justice of S&T benefits (& harms): • “Increasing technological power is increasing the gap between rich and poor, between Western and Third worlds, creating future problems unlikely to be resolved by peaceful social upheaval” (#2) • “Lack of adequate distribution of wealth is one of the biggest social problems facing us [in the 21st Century]” (#4) • “The benefits of research and technology need to be more evenly distributed throughout society” (#7)

Doing Good 3: No Moral Imperative • In contrast, some considered that: • “There is no ethical imperative to do good” (#9) • “It is not the scientists primary activity to convert knowledge into public good, it is still to seek knowledge” (#21) • “Scientists do not have any more of a responsibility than any other sector, bankers, shopkeepers, to do good. Society can’t demand more responsibility of scientists than they do of anybody else.” (#11) • However, on reflectionshe raiseda contrary argumentof science as a vocation with an obligation to be especially morally responsible • “Although ministers and police are supposed to be particularly ethical. Expectations of scientists are more like ministers and police than car salesman” (#11)

Doing Good 4: Not Doing Harm • Most considered it an ethical imperative that: • “Scientists should not cause harm” (#9) • “First, do no harm, not to do damage, not to make monsters” (#4) • Harms to be avoided: • “Need to be careful not to damage the environment or biodiversity” (#15) • “Not to have any negative impact on people” (#4) • “Important to limit animal suffering for the sake of research” (#12) • Safe products and practices • “Safety of the products of science is an important ethical issue” (#3) • “To do things appropriately and safely…we have an ethical and social responsibility” (#14)

Doing Good 5: Benefit and Harm • But, knowledge and technology may have dual uses and effects with both benefits and harms and beneficiaries and victims • “Almost any technology or field of science can have potential lethal applications if used as weapons” (#13) • “Is this knowledge worth the harm that it may cause e.g., animal suffering” (#12) • Some technologies that produce benefits for society in one area have negative consequences for society in others e.g., the car provides transport freedom at the expense of pollution, fossil fuel depletion, and road injuries and deaths

Doing Good 6: Utilitarian Approach • Therefore, while non-harm was considered a moral ideal to be strived for, weighing benefits against harms was frequently seen as a more realistic approach • “I take a utilitarian approach… how do the possible benefits of the research weigh up against the possible harms” (#6) • “Scientists have an obligation to help evaluate and understand both the potential benefits and potential risks associated with their fundamental research and with technological development” (#7) • The later quote links a utilitarian approach to Doing Good through science with the theme of Engagement with the public and the sub-theme of Foresighting

Doing Good 7: Scientists’ Responsibility for the Use of Technologies • A few participants claimed that science and scientists had a responsibility for the use of S&T by society • “Should we have responsibility [for the use of S&T], and I guess the answer is yes… do scientists take responsibility? Probably not” (#8) • “Scientists have a responsibility for the use to which their technological discoveries are put…. If everybody blindly goes along not thinking about what they are actually doing and what it can be used for, then we have a problem. Researchers should definitely be thinking about the future” (#13) • The latter quote links scientists’ responsibility for technology use with their responsibility of Foresighting

Doing Good 8: Limits of Responsibility for technology use • Some participants, claiming use of S&T was unpredictable, questioned scientists’ responsibility for harm caused by use of their discoveries • “If as a researcher you are an optimist and always trying to do public good then you don’t tend to think what could be the negative things that could happen…. It is very difficult to think of all those things, nobody’s got a God’s eye view (#13) • “It is often unclear how new knowledge can be applied and what technologies might be developed…. Scientists cannot be held responsible for unforeseen uses of the knowledge they develop” (#7) • “It is up to society to decide which uses are ethical and which ones unethical and to regulate in accordance with society’s norms” (#7)

Thematic Map: Compliance Business norms Compliance Laws and Regs Scientific norms Societal norms Personal values Integrity Objectivity Publishing Peer review Competence Basic/applied balance Ethics Relativism Right to Challenge Conscience Choice Different values Emotion/proximity Barriers Compulsory Positives Negatives

Thematic Map: Engagement Engagement Becoming informed Informing public Democratisation Small, B., & Mallon, M. (2007). Science, society, ethics and trust: Scientists’ attitudes to commercialisation and democratisation of science. International Studies of Management and Organisation (Special Issue: Organizing Science), 37(1): 103-124.

The Need for Engagement • Participants identified a social responsibility for scientist to Engage with the Public • “Being socially responsible in research means communicating with the public” (#4) • “Scientists need to listen to the public and engage in discussion with them over their work” (#2) • “The public should have a role in setting the scientific research agenda and the weight that is put on particular parts of the agenda” (#8) • “Scientists have a social obligation to make their work known to the public” (#11) • “It is important to take the time to have this communication. Its very valuable to know that you are going in the right direction…. I think this communication between science and society is very important” (#21)

The Need for Engagement • Deficit theory • “We need to make sure the public are more educated about science so they understand the debate… the public just don’t understand enough science to appreciate the issues” (#16) • “I think the biggest problem that we’ve got is to try and educate the public to a level that they can be confident with what we are doing” (#19) • But • In saying that, I’m not even confident that my colleagues are doing the right thing. I actually don’t blame the public for being sceptical, I really don’t” (#19) • “Some scientists have this thing I find incredibly patronising and rude, where they stand up and say the public just needs to be better educated. And every time I hear that, I just cringe, because it is so arrogant” (#10) • “It is arrogant scientists who claim that the public is ignorant, that they are incapable of understanding science” (#11)

Ideal Qualities of Engagement • Transparency, honesty/integrity, accuracy of information, sufficiency of information, foresighting implications • “Transparency is the main ethical responsibility. It is extremely important to be open rather than secretive. Transparency gives the public the opportunity to see what scientists are doing, it puts research up for public scrutiny. In this way a scientist’s ethical responsibilities will be moderated by the community” (#13) • “...being honest and open with the public” (#3) • “…to report scientific findings with honesty and integrity” (#4) • “…to ensure that the science that you do , that the results, finding are actually reported as they are recorded in a way that enables people to interpret them… so that you provide sufficient data for people to draw their own conclusions” (#1) • “A scientist should be honest and say we have had this finding, now it could be used for this, it could be used for that, this is unethical” (#11)

Engagement: Helpful or Divisive? • Helpful • “…where the debate has been taken to the public. There was a lot of rubbish said on both sides, but in the end people came back to a more middle ground. So scientists you once heard saying there are no problems are now saying: well there are these issues. On both sides a lot of people aren’t saying the extreme stuff anymore… they are arguing about real issues” (#11) • Divisive • “…public debate, that’s a them and us thing. That is, the debates have been disastrous in terms of polarising, because you’re asked to come along to debate… and it was quite definitely set up as them and us” (#20) • Engagement needs to be fair • “...it is right that scientific research should be open to public scrutiny, but it has to be a fair process” (#6)

Types of Engagement • Engagement may be: informal, unstructured, formal, structured, culturally (in)appropriate • Methods of Engagement included: conversation with non-science peers, public meetings, debates, dialogues, hui, ethical committees, Royal Commissions, professional groups, advocacy groups, café scientifique • “It is very important to have a method, and this is something that is not well developed… I don’t think we have a good way for interacting between science and society” (#21)

Engagement and the Media • “Public interest in science is created by the media” (#15) • “People are learning to use the press more to tell the public about what they are doing” (#22) • “I think they could be more of our friends than they are” (#19) • “The media don’t tend to pick up on the good stories – just the negative ones” (#10) • “They sensationalise the issues rather than presenting fair and balanced points of view” (#15) • “I know I have been misreported, its quite likely that other people are as well” (#19)

Barriers to Engagement • Commercialisation of science • “There are institutional barriers, so like in Company X, you can’t actually go out and talk to the press unless you get official approval” (#3) • Peer pressure • “Our science general manager stood up and said we are going to be doing a lot of media releases on genetic engineering so please make sure that you sand up for what we are saying and that you tell everyone genetic engineering is good… I think it would be very hard for a scientists to come out and say I’m unsure in public. To do that you would feel like you are going against the science community” (#10) • Career progress • “If I spent all the rest of my career making sure that people heard about my research findings and didn’t pursue new knowledge, then I wouldn’t get anywhere [career wise]” (#8)

Barriers to Engagement • Lack of resources for engagement • “A barrier we have to being socially responsible, is the lack of valuing that time and allocating it to the process of engagement” (#21) • Distain for science popularisers • “Why do scientists criticise people for writing for the public? It’s the demeaning thing, it demeans science” (#14) • Scientific jargon • “Scientific jargon can be a barrier to social responsibility… it can be a screen for scientists to hide behind… a barrier to honest communication” (#11) • Not all scientists are suitable for engaging with the public • “It come down to personality, some people are good at it, some people are crap at it” (#17)

Engagement: Informing the Public • “The public have a right to be informed about what science is doing” (#8) • “Scientists need to create a balance to the misinformation spread by groups such as the Greens, MADGE and GE Free NZ” (#15) • Complex science makes it difficult • “It’s a difficult process because the science that’s being done is very technical and society is very large and multi-faceted” (#21) • “Its just the difficulty of explaining what you do, because the work we do is so specialised that most people don’t really want to listen about it. Its just gobbledegook to them” (#3)

Engagement: Informing the Public • Foresighting technology impacts • “Scientists have a responsibility to keep the public informed as to the goals of research, products that might result, potential benefits and harms” (#4) • “Scientists don’t disseminate knowledge and its implications for future environments or future wellbeing comprehensively enough” (#1)

Engagement: Becoming Informed • “It is very important to listen to the public” (#2) • “…becoming informed about what society finds acceptable” (#9) • “…its appreciation of what society thinks about what we are doing. I believe we haven’t done that really well in the past in many cases” (#16) • “…responsibility to match or at least be cognisant of the community’s ethical opinions and to give back to research within those boundaries” (#21)

Engagement: Becoming Informed • “What scientists should do is engage in discussion with the public as much as possible about their research…especially with people who might have a different angle… so we can get a broader perspective on what we are working on” (#2) • “I take into account Maori views” (#3) • “I take the stance where I listen…going off and doing something and then forcing it on the general public isn’t very responsible” (#5) • “I think science as a whole has a lot to learn from the GM debate… about engaging the public well enough, early enough” (#16)

The Moral Responsibilities of Science in Society: A Qualitative Investigation of Scientists’ Attitudes