Hippocratic Oath for Scientists?
Science June 24th, 2008A group within the Institute of Medical Science at University of Toronto in Canada devised this oath for scientists:
I promise never to allow financial gain, competitiveness or ambition cloud my judgment in the conduct of ethical research and scholarship. I will pursue knowledge and create knowledge for the greater good, but never to the detriment of colleagues, supervisors, research subjects or the international community of scholars of which I am now a member.
The part that particularly caught my eye is serving “the greater good”. The greater good of what? Who decides what is in the interests of that greater good? How very utilitarian!
If we decide that the greater good is “humanity”, that supposes it is a static thing. If a non-human were to perform science, would this oath apply? Their oath outlines a little of what science isn’t and gets that little bit muddled too…
I mostly concur with GrrlScientist’s blog post and share her concerns on the integrity of science, but this oath is not an answer. I might have a stab at defining what science is but the attempt might be futile (according to PF).
Anti Citizen One
June 25th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Wow… interesting idea!
It kind of pressupposes that Science is one monolithic thing – a singular entity, easily definable and with one method, worldview or supporting ideology.
As Feyerabend (PF) suggests and AC-1 alludes to such a definition is nigh impossible (if not in fact wholly undesireable).
From one perspective I can see the merits of this idea – commercial gain. I forget the proportion but a significant chunk of scientific research goes into weapons manufacture. War is a booming business and who knows to what extent energy and food crises may over the coming decades be resolved not by biofuel, or sustainable agricultural research programmes but by whose armed forces are the best equipped to sieze fuel/foodstuffs?!
An interesting perspective, which Feyerabends “Against Method” deals with is this notion that the controllers or portrayers of science as a monolithic institution can have one defining worldview (i.e. Rationalism) and not damage genuine revolutionary scientific enquiry.
He uses Galilleo as his test case and argues that from the power base of the Catholic Church and its Aristotelian worldview, Galilleo’s theories and experimental conclusions were contrary to reason. The key point Feyerabend makes is that Galilleo’s challenge to the Aristotelian view – using methods that are supposedly not scientific (including rhetoric, and the objective assumption of experimental results in the absence of an agreed theoretical standard) was such that eventually he was able to overthrow the existing standards of orthodoxy in place of a new, better and more refined one. He had so to speak used every trick in the book and was subsequently (over a substantial period of time) justified and supported by newly developed theories (including optical theory). He was truly revolutionary. In much the same manner that Quantum Mechanics, Darwinian Evolution etc., provided radical departure points from previously accepted standards of rationality.
Let’s now replace the term “rational” for the term “greater good” – and we can see that once again a singular “worldview” defined by an authoratative (or should that be authoritarian) elite is trying to establish rules and codes of conduct that by their very nature may inhibit the development of future scientific knowledge.
I do agree that some form of ethical dialogue should be involved in the philosophy and politics of science. But I am less certain that this would be the way to do it – a way that would benefit both the development of knowledge and some utility of “greater good” for mankind/earth etc.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Interesting piece on this topic on the BBC.
“Britain’s Sir John Sulston says that profits are taking precedence over the needs of patients, particularly in the developing world.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7490384.stm