The Ethical Challenges of Socially Responsible Science

ABSTRACT

Social responsibility is an essential part of the responsible conduct of research that presents difficult ethical questions for scientists. Recognizing one’s social responsibilities as a scientist is an important first step toward exercising social responsibility, but it is only the beginning, since scientists may confront difficult value questions when deciding how to act responsibly. Ethical dilemmas related to socially responsible science fall into at least three basic categories: 1) dilemmas related to problem selection, 2) dilemmas related to publication and data sharing, and 3) dilemmas related to engaging society. In responding to these dilemmas, scientists must decide how to balance their social responsibilities against other professional commitments and how to avoid compromising their objectivity. In this article, we will examine the philosophical and ethical basis of social responsibility in science, discuss some of the ethical dilemmas related to exercising social responsibility, and make five recommendations to help scientists deal with these issues.

KEYWORDS:

• Ethics
• objectivity
• politics
• scientific research
• social responsibility
• values

Acknowledgments

This article is the work product of an employee or group of employees of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and National Institutes of Health (NIH). However, the statements, opinions or conclusions contained therein do not necessarily represent the statements, opinions or conclusions of NIEHS, NIH, or the United States government.

Notes

1. We will assume that social responsibility encompasses more than duties to society (as a whole) and includes duties to individuals, groups, communities, and the environment.

2. Douglas (2004) distinguishes between eight different senses of scientific objectivity. We will focus on only two here.

3. There is a large philosophical literature examining the relationship between science and reality that we will not address here. See Chakravartty (2010).

4. There is not sufficient space in this article to review this debate here. For further discussion see Longino (1990), Resnik (2007), Douglas (2009), and Elliott (2011).

5. For further discussion, see Resnik (2007, 2009), Douglas (2004, 2009), Elliott (2011), and Elliott and Resnik (2014).

6. The NSABB does not have the legal authority to censor or classify research. It only makes recommendations that other federal agencies may choose to follow.

7. Expert testimony includes testimony in a court of law or on government committees or boards.

8. The consensus view is that human activities, such as emissions of greenhouse gases and deforestation, are partly responsible for the rise in global temperatures that has occurred in the last hundred years and is expected to continue even if current practices change (Solomon et al., 2007).