|
|
|
Nancy Jones |
Nancy L. Jones
Wake Forest University School of Medicine
As originally printed in The Physiologist,
August 2001, Volume 44, Number 4
Page 149
|
|
|
Nancy Jones |
Prescriptive Power
Science and technology in the 20th century have played a leading role in charting the course of action for society and individuals. The influence of science in the new 21st century should be equally all-encompassing. Nearly every aspect of our lives is influenced by “research.” We may argue about how much credence the public gives an individual report or study, but you can rest assured that if the conclusions support an individual’s presuppositions or inclinations, science will be used to justify his/her behavior.
Historically, ethical systems, grown out of philosophical and theological disciplines, define what is right and wrong, good and bad, and prescribe how we ought to live. How then have science and scientists been given such influence in society as to command how we ought to live? The answer lies within the aim of science, the acquisition of knowledge of the truth. But is science an ethical system?
Is Science an Ethical System?
The two basic types of ethical systems are 1) moral obligation theories, systems that tell you what is the right thing to do; and 2) virtue theories, systems that show what kind of person you ought to be. If science is an ethical system, it should define what is right and wrong and prescribe how we ought to live. It should also have universibility and mechanisms for resolving
conflicting principles. As such, the field of science has elements of a moral obligation theory, while scientists are believed to embody certain virtues. But is science able to function as an ethical system?
The Activity of Science
The acquisition of knowledge is gained by the inductive scientific method. First, a problem is deconstructed into the most basic elements. A hypothesis is formulated and tested. Data gathering either supports or refutes the hypothesis. Once observations are made, facts are found and re-tested against other known principles and principles found by multiple methodologies. The empirical data generated are used to derive broad governing laws. Objective Truth or Law is revealed. Following governing laws should result in the betterment of society (3). The whole process is capsulated in the objective, above subjective, means of understanding the world.
The Virtuous Scientist
The second premise is that of the virtuous scientist. Historically, a scientific professional was committed to a contemplative lifestyle with a self-transcendence into a purer state of being, wholly devoted to the discovery of truth. Einstein’s “temple of science” consists of a solitary lifestyle of introspection (3). The scientist is regarded as an impartial or distanced observer or, in modern terms, has no conflicts of interest with the outcome or interpretation of the data collected.
Popularized glimpses of scientists are people clad in white coats, usually isolated from the buzz of humanity, and who only leave the laboratory to proclaim their next finding. Contrast this with the second most popular image of scientists—the mad scientist—totally depraved, consumed with ambition, and concocting a means to gain ultimate power over the world. Our world is well-aware that knowledge is power and that power can corrupt. However, the term scientist is synonymous with the prima facie obligation of rational objectivity steeped in logical, non-emotional, defendable, and intellectual activity. The motivation for scientists is presumed to be for the sake of truth itself and not to “secure personal gain or to promote the supremacy of a particular philosophy or ideology” (2).
Intellectual assessment of the truth holds the power to correct and better, and no coercion or manipulation is necessary.
Truth Possessors
The ideology of science provides the framework that, in theory, is consistent with an ethical system. The activity of science, as well as the scientist, is regarded as objective and rational, and, thereby, embodies a virtuous means of finding truth. In fact, prior to and during the early years following World War II, the world of science was endowed with scientific positivism and optimism. Positivism posits that the methods and insights of science validate and give morality to acts on scientific grounds (5). Optimism claims the world’s salvation, meaning future and betterment of the world, is inevitable as a result of scientific activity (3).
How can the world be saved by science? Science evokes salvation not by intervening directly into people’s lives, but rather indirectly through the increase in knowledge of the “truth.” This truth is of the highest quality, because both the activity of science and the agent, the scientist, are endowed with virtue by their objective and rational nature. Furthermore, the truth revealed is not dogmatically imposed but available for rational people to use in their deliberations on how to act. Unlike philosophies and religions, this means of uncovering truth is considered morally neutral, because of the objective nature of the activity and agent. This type of intellectual activity is highly esteemed in our secular society that relies on secular rationalism as the favored form of moral justification. It is arguable whether in this most pure form scientism flourishes, but elements of this belief system are in our societal collective subconscious. So we must ask, is science, both the activity and the agents, consistent with these ethical theories?
Thorns Climbing the Ivory Tower
Serious, and arguably incurable, flaws tarnish the virtuous view of both scientific activity and scientists. First, the ivory tower of academia, the virtuous scientist’s abode, has had the thorny weeds of consumerism and big business crowding out the mythical insulation provided by an academic environment. The prior prejudice of academic scientists over industry scientists holds no ground in the contemporary academic setting where striving for viability by heralding intellectual prowess, claims of “firsts,” and courting private investors and industry are common place. Academic consumerism is epitomized by administrations pandering to the
US News and World Report University Rankings and crystallizes the ivory tower delusion. Furthermore, the distanced impartial scientist is suspect as well. The most successful scientists now are those that have adapted as entrepreneurs of intellectual activity, skilled at obtaining professional remuneration and renown. Moreover, the scientific community itself has entered the fray of politics, patient advocacy, and public policy to secure a “scientific” agenda for the future, which can be easily construed as promoting the supremacy of a particular philosophy or ideology.
As the scientist’s virtuosity crumbles upon closer scrutiny, we are not surprised because, after all, scientists are human. And humans, as philosophers and theologians have asserted across time, are either not naturally virtuous or are easily corrupted by societal evils. But the scientific method, by design, overcomes these obstacles inherit to human nature, does it not? So the question is whether scientists can corrupt the objectivity of scientific activity. Daniel Callahan (1) asserts that, “Science is an intensely human and social endeavor, and the work of scientists cannot be cleanly separated from their own personal ambitions and aspirations, let alone those of the larger community in which they work. The work of scientists is conditioned and influenced at every stage of research by personal, professional, and social values. Such values contribute to the motivation and conceptual outlook of scientists, and it is important that scientists be sensitive to their influence—good or bad—on their work.” Cloaked in objective factual scientific statements are inherent values that can be traced to the scientist, tradition, or society. As such, what is found will nearly always be influenced by what is looked for.
Although the activity of science by design reduces and subdivides subjects, ultimately society wants the generated data to reveal universal mechanisms. But each subspecialty and experimental method has unique abilities and limitations to the universally of the experimental interpretation. So how far may one extrapolate from a single report or subspecialty? Historically, the scientific community has provided these normative processes for research activity. The community not only provides proof of the veracity of the findings by peer review and publication in reputable journals but ultimately gives a stamp of reliability when research is reconfirmed by other members of the scientific community. Peer review, pit falls and all, means that research can survive scrutiny by a body of scientists, not just the individual researchers. However, funding outside of peer review, commercialization of intellectual activity, speed to application, and increased accessibility of data at all stages of analysis
inherently inflates the individual scientific opinion and minimizes the influences of the whole scientific society.
Weed Whackers or Herbicides
As the biomedical research community is struggling with the evolving scientific environment pressurized by our consumerism society, an ethics vacuum for both the “ethical” scientist and “ethical” activity of science has been identified. To address the ethics shortfall, the National Institutes of Health began requiring formal training for their sponsored trainees in the “Responsible conduct of research and the principles of scientific integrity” (4). Recently, the Office of Research Integrity has proposed to extend this ethics training to all personnel on Public Health Service
grants. A consensus has been reached of the necessity of raising the ethical training bar, but the nature of the required training has not been standardized.
Perhaps the scope of the perceived problem can be shown in often-heard comments. Such as, ethics in science is actually an extension of common sense values and accepted behaviors of society as a whole. The problem with this naturalistic view is the concept that people inherently know what is the right thing to do and that our diverse global society operates from the same ethical system. Such emphasis relegates science to a minimal or average standard, rather than elevating it to a professional level. So before we embark on corrective measures, we might ask what is the standard we hope to achieve?
Professional Standard
Society places enormous trust in the scientific endeavor, and we as members of the scientific community want to be worthy of this trust. As noted above, the trust lies in the belief of the objective scientific activity and the virtuous scientist. Just as society wants virtuous physicians who adhere to the Hippocratic standard, so society wants virtuous scientists and science that subscribe to timeless standards. Scientists might not be able to change the environment for scientific activity nor alter the biases and flaws inherent within individual scientific methods. However, like the Hippocratic physician, they can embrace a professionalism that will transcend these outside influences and endorse normative standards for the scientific community. Does science have a professional code that is universally known or upheld? Yes and no.
Although scientists practice the scientific method, they generally adhere to one of two major philosophies. Commitment to one of these philosophies influences scientific professionalism as well as the interface with the rest of society. The first philosophy states that knowledge is the sole object of science. The second philosophy agrees with the value of acquiring knowledge but insists in linking that activity with the underling purpose of the betterment of society. These two philosophies pull science in diverse directions. The acquisition of knowledge for knowledge’s sake alone translates in our autonomy driven society as a “right” or “ought” for scientific and research freedom. “What can be done” is used to justify what is done. Elevating knowledge to a place of supremacy allows justification for all “scientifically” relevant experiments. This philosophy spurs the concept that governmental (societal) restriction of research is paternalistic and results in needless regulatory oversight as well as impedes scientific advancement. However, when the results are thought to justify the means, the public anticipates experiments gone awry and the truth that would obviate regulation is lacking.
Contrast this with the Baconian philosophy of linking the acquisition of knowledge to the betterment of
society. This philosophy of science casts scientists as servants of society and members of a scientific profession and thereby checks the mad scientist’s thirst for power. This philosophy leads to examination of “What should be done?” To justify research, the means must also be ethical in this principled approach. The public endorses this concept of the function of science. Although some adopt the view of responsibility to society, a more generally articulated view is science (knowledge) for science’s (knowledge’s) sake alone. Science for knowledge alone is innately blemished by perpetuating self-interests of the industry of science, and thereby making suspect the objectivity of the activity. Promotion of the philosophy for the betterment of society can provide a safeguard for science’s future and maintain the public trust in the profession.
Emphasizing professionalism and membership in a scientific community as part of ethics training has many
positive outcomes. First, scientists begin to conform to the highest standards, as well as identifying themselves with age-tested ethical norms. Norms like honesty, objectivity, tolerance, doubt of certitude, and unselfish engagement (2). Honesty and unselfish engagement need no definition. However, unselfish engagement needs further discussion. The concept of unselfish engagement, although perhaps unobtainable, becomes controllable in the context of openness and membership in a functioning community. Doubt of certitude indicates readiness to question authorities to advance new knowledge. This principle asserts that no theory or fact is sacred; rather, conclusions are always subject to further revelation and reinterpretation. This principle is combined with a healthy need for independent confirmation and the ability of data to stand the test of time. Tolerance is the norm based on respect for other’s ideas within the scientific community.
Truth Pursuers
The scientific community needs to ascribe to the highest standards of accountability and leadership. The influences that scientists have in society brings with it the largely un-addressed obligation to provide more responsible leadership. Medical doctors have long been taught about the influence they wield over people in vulnerable situations. However, “researchers” in the past were more insulated from consequences of their influence. “The scientific community has been well-prepared to take responsibility (and credit) for the benefits it bestows: and it is right that is it should. To what extent should it be prepared to take equal responsibility (and blame) for the harm it can and does produce?” (1). This is particularly true as scientific research reaches the public with increasing speed and at earlier stages of investigation.
We must also defuse the positivism of science and reestablish what science can and cannot answer. Science can give us an understanding of the biological forces and laws governing our universe. Science, as a discipline based on certain presuppositions and a naturalistic worldview, however, cannot answer metaphysical questions. Modern trained scientists, with minimal philosophical education, do not even know when they are transgressing outside of their discipline’s abilities. This deficiency must also be addressed if we are to regain ethical science and ethical scientists.
The White Coat
The white coat has remained a powerful symbol of our profession. I argue that it is our responsibility as a professional community to repaint a more accurate picture of the meaning of the white coat. Some might argue this would demean or jeopardize our position in society or impede the progress. However, science in the real world can never reflect the pure ideology associated with science. Truth gathered by the scientific methods should always be examined in light of the limitations of the methods, the climate in which the research was done, and the researcher’s subspecialty. “Rational” scientists more than any other professional group should be champions ready to slay the myths and misconceptions of what society can rightly expect from the activity of science. As such, we should begin to paint a different ideal or model: the scientist clad in the white coat does not possess ultimate truth; rather he is a fellow pursuer of truth.
Although the white coat indicates advanced training in skills that can increase the wearer’s ability to look at things objectively and systematically, it cannot cloak his human nature. Rather, it is the scientific community’s responsibility, as it passes on the right to wear a white coat, to give assurances of the professionalism of the wearer.
References
1. Callahan, D., Ethical responsibility in science in the face of uncertain consequences.
Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 265: 1-12, 1976.
2. Cournand, A., The code of the scientist and its relationship to ethics. Science 198: 699-705, 1977.
3. Holton, G., “Scientific optimism and societal concerns a note on the psychology of scientists,”
Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 265: 82-101, 1976.
4. IOM report of a study on the responsible conduct of research in the health sciences,
Clin. Res. 37:179-91, 1989.
5. Stent, G. The poverty of scientism and the promise of structural ethics. The Roots of Ethics: Science, Religion, and
Values, Edited by D. Callahan, a. E., HT Jr.,, Ed., New York: Plenum. 1981.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr. Dawn C. Schwenke for editorial and content insights for this article.
[Table of Contents] [Ethics Revisited] [Physiology and Functional Genomics: A Natural Fit] [ 154th APS Business Meeting] [Daggs Award] [ Award Descriptions] [Experimental Biology '02 Program Preview] [SRTs and Hosts Honored at EB '01] [Orlando Science Teachers and Students Participate in EB Workshop] [ISEF] [ Membership] [ Ken Baldwin] [ Michael Jennings] [Publications] [Nebraska Chapter News] [Public Affairs] [Positions Available] [People & Places] [News From Senior Physiologists] [ Book Reviews] [Books Received] [APS Membership Application] [Scientific Meetings and Congresses]
