Ethics in Science Summer Semester 2013 5: Scientists’ social role and social responsibility

1. Ethics in ScienceSummer Semester 20135: Scientists’ social role and social responsibility Christoph Rehmann-Sutter Professor of Theory and Ethics in the Biosciences rehmann@imgwf.uni-luebeck.de www.imgwf.uni-luebeck.de

2. Contents • Clarification of the term ‚responsibility‘ • The example of climate change science: Social responsibility of scientists and its limits. • The „ethos of science“ and value neutrality of science. • In what ways can we admit that scientific facts are socially constructed?

3. ‚Responsibility‘ can mean: • To be accountable or to blame for something. (Example: can physicists be blamed for the atomic bomb, Hiroshima and Nagasaki?) • The opportunity or ability to act independently and to make decisions without authorization. (Example: Who is in charge for the lab safety measures?) • A thing that one is required to do as part of her/his job. (Example: Should scientists define limits of global warming, eg the + 2 centigrades limit?) • A moral obligation to behave correctly in respect of others. (Example: Do scientists have social duties regarding research subjects? (see dictionaries)

4. Responsibility is a relational term: • It describes a complex relation: • Somebody is responsible • for something (action, consequences, states, duties etc.) • to somebody (an addressee) • in regard to an instance of sanctions or judgments • in regard to a prescriptive, normative criterion • in the context of a field of practices. (see Hans Lenk / Günter Ropohl, Hg.: Technik und Ethik. Stuttgart: Reclam 2nd ed. 1993) • It is a relationship: To act responsibly means to respond to a situation and to somebody who is dependent on and vulnerable to one‘s actions.

5. This and the next two slides: from www.epa.gov (Date of access: 7 May 2013)

6. These maps show temperatures across the world in the 1880s (left) and the 1980s (right), as compared to average temperatures from 1951 to 1980. This difference from average is called an anomaly. The map on the left shows that it was colder in the 1880's in most places. The map on the right shows it was warmer in the 1980s in most places. Earth's average surface temperature has increased almost 1.5°F during the 20th century. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.3°F-0.4°F per decade. 
Source: NASA

8. What do do with ‚climate sceptics‘? Anthony Giddens (The Politics of Climate Change. Cambridge: Polity Press 2009, p. 24) argues for inclusion as far as possible: „Yet the sceptics do deserve and must receive a hearing. Scepticism is the life-blood of science and just as important in policy-making. It is right that whatever claims are made about climate change and its consequences are examined with a critical, even hostile, eye and in a continuing fashion. ... The sceptics are right to say that in the media, and sometimes in the speeches of politicians, climate change is now often invoked as though it explains every weather episode. ... However the sceptics do not have a monopoly on critical scrutiny. Critical self-examination is the obligation of every scientist and researcher.“

9. A cautious and politically realistic view is advanced by American climate scientists close to the American Academy of Sciences. Excerpt from a letter to the members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate from John Abraham et al (coordinated by the Project on Climate Science: www.ProjectOnClimateScience.org) Climate Change Deniers „Climate change deniers cloak themselves in scientific language, selectively critiquing aspects of mainstream climate science. Sometimes they present alternative hypotheses as an explanation of a particular point, as if the body of evidence were a house of cards standing or falling on one detail; but the edifice of climate science instead rests on a concrete foundation. As an open letter from 255 NAS members noted in the May 2010 Science magazine, no research results have produced any evidence that challenges the overall scientific understanding of what is happening to our planet’s climate and why.“

10. Scientists‘ obligations and politics Lewis Wolpert (The social responsibility of scientists. Moonshine and morals. BMJ 298, 1989, 941-943) „Scientists have the obligation to examine the social implications of their work, not to decide how or if it should be used - that, as in the case of the bomb, is a political decision-but to make it clear how reliable their conclusions are.“ Scientists can not make political decisions as scientists. As citizens they can.

11. To keep in mind: • Scientists should explain in public what makes their conclusions reliable, how they are based on facts, and where their limits are. • Scientists cannot make political decisions ‚as scientists‘. This is the task and the capacity of politics and citizens. • Scientists are also citizens.

12. Responsibility from the „inside“: The „Ethos of Science“ as complex of funktional norms, which contribute to efficient functioning of scientific work and collaboration Robert K. Merton described the ethos of science as “that emotionally toned complex of values and norms which held to be binding on the man of science.” These norms are controlled by sanctions and rewards. They are internalized to some degree by the scientists (Merton, 1968, p. 605): Merton identified four norms: • Communalism, • Universalism, • Disinterestedness, and • Organized Skepticism („CUDOS“). • Ziman (1984) has added Originality. Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York: New York Free Press. Merton, R. K. (1973). The Sociology of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ziman, J. (1984). An introduction to science studies: The philosophical and social aspects of science and technology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Pr.

13. CUDOS Communalism: Scientific knowledge is public knowledge; freely available to all. The results of research do not belong to individual scientists, but to the world at large. Universalism: There is no privileged sources of scientific knowledge; the laws of science are the same everywhere and are independent of the scientists involved. Disinterestedness: Scientists are unbiased; science is conducted in order to further human knowledge. They have no personal stake in the acceptance or rejection of data or claims. Organized Skepticism: Scientists take nothing on trust; knowledge, whether new or old, must always be scrutinized for possible errors of fact or inconsistencies of argument. - and Originality (Ziman): Science is the discovery of the unknown; all scientific work must be novel, continually adding to the body of scientific knowledge. Credit: J. L. Bencze (http://webspace.oise.utoronto.ca/~benczela/ScienceEthos_Ex.pdf)

14. Value neutrality of (social) science According to Max Weber (1864-1920) value neutrality is the duty of a sociologist to identify and acknowledge their own values and overcome their personal biases when conducting sociological research. In order to be value-neutral, sociologists must be aware of their own moral judgments and values, and avoid incorporating them into their research, their conclusions, and their teaching. This criterion has been applied to physical sciences as well, as part of good scientific practice. Pop version: „Believe in the facts not in the personal opinions.“ Caution: It may not always be possible to set aside personal values and reach complete objectivity, not even in the physical sciences, but one can be more or less conscious and transparent of the value assumptions used.

15. „External“: Is Science „value free“? Value neutral ≠ free of values Science itself is a value! Doing science is always done in a cultural and social context that influences what is seen as relevant. (It should not bias the results.) There is a social responsibility of scientists: • To be value neutral, e.g. in evolution biology, embryology • To contribute solid research (society pays for it), e.g. in stem cell research • To contribute relevant research (society has problems to solve), e.g. in medicine • To warn society in cases of danger (= early detection of risks), e.g. in climate change

16. Science costs. What can society expect from it? Bethlehem, April 2013. Foto: CRS

17. Kurt Bayertz (1988): „Die Moral kann nicht aus der Wissenschaft selbst kommen, sondern nur von aussen an sie herangetragen werden.“ – Ethics cannot emerge from science itself, it can only be brought from outside, from society. But: Scientists are not just fuctional parts in the machinery of science. They are also citicens, humans, ethically reflecting subjects, partners in relationships. Kurt Bayertz: Das Ethos der Wissenschaften und die Moral. In: Ludwig Siep (Hg.): Ethik als Anspruch an die Wissenschaft oder: Ethik in der Wissenschaft. Freiburg 1988, S. 9-20. • Science is in a societal context, and responsibility develops in a discourse in-between science and society. • There is a social contract between society (who pays etc.) and science, whose conditions need be be constantly evaluated. • Independence of science (from sponsors) is one of the components of the social contract of science.

18. In what ways can we admit that scientific facts are ‚socially constructed‘? Peter L. Berger / Thomas Luckmann (The social construction of reality. A treatise in the sociology of knowledge, 1966): „The basic contentions of the argument of this book are implicit in its title and subtitle, namely, that reality is socially constructed and that the sociology of knowledge must analyse the processes in which this occurs.“ • We can investigate (sociologically) how beliefs about physical and social reality are made in scientific research practice and in science-society interactions. We can explore how they become socially relevant and reliable. Scientific facts are not natural facts. • This does not endanger science but can improve its reliability. It is not (!) a free pass to claim that a scientific ‚fact‘ which does not please me is ‚socially constructed‘, and therefore untrue or irrelevant.

19. (Bio)ethics Theology, philosophy etc. committees –: moralistic +: ethical terms and concepts, fairness of discourse Those affected Patients, consumers etc. –: particular +: Experiential knowledge as people affected, moral competence Kritics Alternative mevements, environmentalists etc. –: pessimistic +: power relations, injustece, alternative knolwedge Applicants Medicine or Industry –: technicist +: Innovation, techn, knolwedge and skills, possibilities of improvement Ethical Discourse Science Biology, ecology etc. –: scientistic +: „facts“ = knowledge relevant for technology and technology assessment – = shortcomings due to perspective + = advantages due to perspective

20. Example 1: Stem cell clinics www.beikebiotech.com Date of access: 2009

21. www.bionet-china.org

22. REC. 25-- Safety for patients • Investigation of the safety and efficacy of treatment with stem cells in state-of-art trials before offering them to patients. Treatment with stem cells should be classified as novel therapy. While some uses have been clinically evaluated and are successfully used, many proposed applications have not been subject to rigorous clinical trials to demonstrate efficacy and safety. Any uses of stem cell therapies that have not been so evaluated should be planned as controlled clinical trials, and only undertaken on the basis of pre-clinical study before they are offered to patients. Rigorous scientific and ethical review should always be required prior to any such use. Partner countries should establish an enforceable safety regime. BIONET Expert Group Report (2010): www.bionet-china.org

23. The Expert Group hopes that its recommendations ... will be attended to widely, and discussed both in Europe and in China. They are not written in stone but should be considered as key points for consideration, which need to be continually developed on the basis of new emerging insights and practices in biomedical research collaboration. The recommendations are procedural in character, ie, they set out a road map for developing ethical governance of research in international collaborations, indicating the places where ethical issues can arise and sketching how to prevent them. They refer to different layers of the networks of research governance, not only top-down regulation. ...

24. Beike Biotech website on 7 May 2013

25. Conclusions • If you act as a scientist: explain the evidence and its limits! • The social responsibilty of scientists essentially is to be a good and reliable scientist who knows her/his capacities and limits. • The social responsibility of scientists also includes citicenship: both as scientists (acting in interdisciplinary discourses) and as a political person (who is a responsible citizen). These roles should not be conflated. • Technoscientists who become entrepreneurs have a more difficult relationship with the public, since they become advocates of their products.

26. Further reading • Anne Chapman: Democratizing Technology. Risk, Responsibility and the Regulation of Chemicals. London: Earthscan 2007. • Bernard Rollin: Science and Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr. 2006. • Ben Mepham: Bioethics. And Introduction of the Biosciences. Oxford: Oxford University Pr. 2nd ed. 2008. Classic: • Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker: Die Verantwortung der Wissenschaft im Atomzeitalter (1957) Commentary (see the pdf on our course website): Sheila Jasanoff: Technologies of humility. Nature 450 (2007): 33