Daniel Underwood
Tutor: Felipe Abdalla
The Social Responsibilities of Scientists
Scientists have always been at the forefront of human endeavor. Whether it is simple
inventions such as household appliances, or grander schemes such as space exploration,
they have always played an important role in pushing the human race into more
sophisticated areas. However as science plays an incredibly enormous role in the every
aspect of human kind is it forever surrounded with ethical and social issues concerning
the work done by scientists. Questions of morality are always raised whenever a
controversial area of science is experimented on. Are they morally correct? Will they
really help the human race to progress?
Communication and curiosity has always caused the population to speculate,
especially in areas of scientific progress. Most of the time rumours are based purely on
false accusations and are usually embellished, but sometimes it can be true. And if it is
not true, then what is it that causes science to help contribute to such controversial parts
of human kind?
Ethical questions usually arise whenever science encounters the world of politics. An
example of this includes armed forces within countries. War is the highest form of
conflict between humans, and has forever been a part of human culture. Science has
helped war become a greater disturbance due to the evolution of technologies, where for
example weapons are developed to be made much more sophisticated, based on scientific
principles. Bombs, tanks, aircraft and firearms are just a few things that can be
recognised in the modern world, that have all be manufactured based on improving
scientific technologies.
Because the armed forces are such a largely invested area of politics, it’s hard to
determine exactly how developments are made within the controversial areas. It is
difficult to point the finger as it could lead to scandalous conflicts. But it is hard to
imagine that thoughts of morality do not pass through the minds of scientists who are
adding to the cause. Is the real issue pulled over their eyes, or are they in it for the
money? Could they just be war-mongering pigs?
Another area that has raised much controversy in scientific circles is that of genetic
modification, such as cloning. Many people have theological believes in higher deities,
and therefore are very strongly against the manipulation of their Gods’ creation. In fact
war also falls under the category of the ethical issues surrounding religion, but that’s
another story. Because these people believe in a God that has made a divine creation in
human kind, they believe that it should be untouched.
Arguments also arise in this subject that have nothing to do with religion. Human
cloning brings up arguments about social problems with cloned subjects. Because the
human species is so highly evolved our brains have developed beyond simple chemistry
and biology. We also have feelings and emotions that can’t be explained so simply. If
you asked a human what they think it would be like to be a clone then you would
probably receive answers about emotion, knowing that they are not “normal” in the
simple sense.
So many factors surround each of these cases, and many more that involve scientific
study. So how can science be made aware of what people think is morally correct or not?
Daniel Underwood
Tutor: Felipe Abdalla
Because there is no defining principle that governs what is morally correct or not it
becomes hard for scientists to adhere to a set of rules, as it were. They must make their
own judgments based on their own principles, and this will inevitably cause conflict with
other people’s beliefs.
It’s clear to see that the majority of people do not work specifically in scientific areas,
and therefore not everyone’s voice can be heard. The closest thing we have to making
decisions fairly in the political world is democracy, as everyone’s opinion matters, but
even that isn’t perfect as your own opinion doesn’t seem to make a difference in the
greater scheme of things, although most countries are lucky to have this form of
government. If this were to be used to decide what science should be doing and what it
should be pulling the plug on then there would still be problems. Even if the scientific
world was controlled in this way, by having a completely separate scientific watchdog it
wouldn’t work properly, as not every country in the world may be willing to join the
union.
It’s extremely difficult to come up with a universal agreement in any shape or form
because it would just fall apart on a global scale, as worldwide politics in any sense is
very hard to handle. However if each individual country made their own decisions about
scientific morals then it may cause parts of the world to fall behind and others to prosper,
whether or not other countries agree with it, and in some cases may lead countries in the
future to contradict their beliefs made previously in order to buy into an area of science
that someone elsewhere has developed by the controversial means.
In conclusion, it’s probably the most simplest to involve the general public in some
way by means of democracy, and perhaps have individual scientific communities that can
act as watchdogs for the ethically-challenging areas of research. It can never be a perfect
system as there is such a sporadic range of ethical beliefs within the worldwide
community, and no area of science can definitely be undisturbed by questions of morals
and ethics. No one can ever be sure as to what will be important for the future of
mankind, especially the majority of people (who do not work in the world of science) so
this will forever be a tricky subject in human culture and may never be resolved one
hundred percent.