JCHAS-938; No of Pages 4

FEATURE

Safety and ethics in ACS

and major scientific and
engineering societies: A gap
analysis
The American Chemical Society (ACS) Chemical Professional’s Code of Conduct treats safety in a
constrained fashion, denying it the emphasis it enjoys in other major science & engineering societies. This
paper compares and contrasts the ACS document with representative codes of ethics from several sources,
demonstrating that the non-ACS documents rest on a firmly-stated ethical basis and meet other criteria for
communicating the primary position of safety. Changes are proposed to the ACS Code to better align with
best practices in other organizations and to follow recent advances in promoting safety within the ACS.

By Daniel R. Kuespert
INTRODUCTION AND THE ACS CODE
Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and
security of person.1
Most major scientific and engineering
societies adhere to codes of ethics or
codes of conduct. These codes often
address safety, particularly when the
practice of the organization’s members
involves risk of some kind. The Ameri-
can Chemical Society, the world’s largest
professional society, with over 150,000
members, has several such documents,
the principal of which is the ACS Chem-
ical Professional’s Code of Conduct,2 a
portion of which appears below.
Chemical professionals should actively be
concerned with the health and safety of
co-workers, consumers, and the commu-
nity. [emphasis mine] They have a respon-
sibility to serve the public interest and
safety and to further advance the knowl-
edge of science. Public comments on sci-
entific matters should be made with care
and accuracy, without unsubstantiated,
exaggerated, or premature statements.3
Daniel R. Kuespert is affiliated with the
Johns Hopkins University. Address:
103G Shaffer Hall, 3400 North Charles
Street, The Johns Hopkins University,
Baltimore, MD 21218 (USA). (E-mail
address: dkuespert@jhu.edu).
Similar codes exist for organizations
such as the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME),4 the
Association of Computing Machinery
(ACM),5 and the American Institute of
Chemical Engineers (AIChE).6
The ACS has recently strengthened
its position on safety. In late 2016, the
ACS Board of Directors approved a
position paper on Safety in the Chemi-
cal Enterprise,7 addressing broad pub-
lic policy issues, and in 2017, ACS
added a requirement that journal
authors “address and emphasize any
unexpected, new, and/or significant
hazards or risks associated with the
reported work.”8 The Chemical
Professional’s Code of Conduct has
not kept pace with these advance-
ments and could benefit from
enhanced attention to safety.
ETHICAL BASIS FOR SAFETY
There are two basic approaches taken
toward safety: one which focuses on
the actor and one which focuses on
those who are potentially acted-upon.
The first approach is the principle
that it is wrong to harm others, an
injunction that appears in some form
in most religions (e.g., “Thou shalt not
kill.”) This is known generally as the
Principle of Nonmaleficence, embod-
ied by the statement apocryphally
attributed to the Hippocratic Oath:
“First, do no harm.” Although the prin-
ciple applies to action or inaction,
many people’s ethical practices differ-
entiate between the two, giving less
ethical weight to situations which
involve inaction. It is far easier to ratio-
nalize a situation when one did not act
than a situation in which one did.
Safety issues frequently involve inac-
tion – the failure to take adequate risk-
reduction measures – and this ethical
heuristic to downplay “crimes of
omission” is the ethical root of many
health and safety catastrophes.
The second approach is that of
human rights: a co-worker, subordi-
nate, or member of the public has
the right not to be injured, killed, or
placed in danger through safety lapses.
This can be viewed as the “Golden
Rule” approach: one should treat
others as one would prefer to be trea-
ted. In bioethics, this is described as
the principle of Respect for Persons.9 It
arises from the philosophy of natural
law, that is, that there are certain rights
or values inherent in the human con-
dition or in human nature that pertain
regardless of culture or situation.
CRITERIA FOR INCLUDING SAFETY
IN CODES OF ETHICS/CONDUCT
These two ethical principles suggest six
criteria for including safety in codes of
ethics:

1871-5532 ã 2017 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of Division of Chemical Health and Safety of the American 1
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2017.04.001 Chemical Society.

Please cite this article in press as: Kuespert, D. R2., Safety and ethics in Acs and major scientific and engineering societies: A gap analysis.
J. Chem. Health Safety (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2017.04.001
JCHAS-938; No of Pages 4
1. Safety should be presented in terms of
ethical responsibilities as opposed to
compliance with law and regulation.
2. Statements regarding safety should
be generally applicable to all, mean-
ing that they should be drawn to
encompass the largest population
of protected persons possible.
3. Safety should be given highest pri-
ority, a position that should be clear
in case of conflict between provi-
sions of the code.
4. Statements regarding safety should
be strong, with little room for equiv-
ocation or deliberate misinterpreta-
tion.
5. The existence of bona fide safety risks
should obligate one to take action to
reduce them; a positive duty should
be imposed on the practicing chemist
(or other professional).
6. Safety issues should be raised to any
level necessary to achieve their suc-
cessful resolution, whether inside or
outside the organization (a disclo-
sure requirement or “whistleblower
clause”).
SAFETY IN REPRESENTATIVE
ENGINEERING AND SCIENTIFIC
CODES OF ETHICS
American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME)
Engineers . . . [use] their knowledge and
skill for the advancement of human wel-
fare. [emphasis mine]10
Engineers shall hold paramount the
health, safety, and welfare of the public
in the performance of their professional
duties. [emphasis mine]11
The ASME Code is one of the oldest
engineering codes of ethics. It is similar
to but slightly less comprehensive than
that of AIChE, below. While Criteria
1–4 are met, the ASME code lacks a
disclosure requirement. The concept of
“holding paramount” safety implies a
positive duty to action, so Criterion 5 is
met as well.
Association for Computing Machinery
(ACM)
General moral imperatives: As an ACM
member I will . . . contribute to society
and to human well-being.
2 Journal of Chemical Health & Safety, May/June 2017
Please cite this article in press as: Kuespert, D. R2., Safety and ethics in Acs and major scientific and engineering societies: A gap analysis.
J. Chem. Health Safety (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2017.04.001
The principle of quality of life of all people
affirms an obligation to protect funda-
mental human rights . . . An essential
aim of computing professionals is to min-
imize the negative consequences of com-
puting systems, including threats to health
& safety. [emphasis mine].12
Criteria 1, 2, and 4 resemble the
ASME Code; priority is conveyed by
the position of “human well-being” at
the top of the document rather than by
explicit statement and so is weakened
slightly. The ethical basis is particularly
well-explained from a human-rights
perspective, and there is a clear posi-
tive duty to “protect.” The ACM Code
does, nevertheless, lack a disclosure
requirement.
American Institute of Chemical
Engineers (AIChE)
[Chemical engineers shall use] their
knowledge and skill for the advancement
of human welfare. [emphasis mine]13
[Chemical engineers shall] hold para-
mount the health, safety, and welfare of
the public in the performance of their
professional duties. [emphasis mine]14
[Chemical engineers shall] formally
advise their employers or clients (and con-
sider further disclosure, if warranted) if
they perceive that a consequence of their
duties will adversely affect the present or
future health or safety of their colleagues
or the public. [emphasis mine]15
This is the best model for ACS. It
makes a strong, unequivocal statement
that communicates safety as the high-
est priority, and it requires disclosure
of safety issues ahead of such issues as
duty to employer. The ethical basis is
provided in a positive sense in the
preamble, and the general applicability
of the safety elements of the code are
implicit in the generally-understood
engineering-ethics definition of “the
public,” which is “anyone other than
your employer or client.” A positive
duty to act is implicit in holding safety
paramount, as in the ASME Code.
HOW DOES ACS COMPARE?
The word “safety” occurs five times in
the Chemical Professional’s Code of
Conduct [quotations below are
excerpts from the relevant Code
sections]:
1. To the Public: “Chemical profes-
sionals should actively be con-
cerned with the health and safety
of co-workers, consumers, and the
community.”
2. To their Employer: “Chemical pro-
fessionals should . . . comply with
safety policies and procedures . . . ”
3. To Students: “ . . . They [chemical
professionals] should . . . promote
professional development, learning,
and safety . . . ”
4. To the Environment: “They [chem-
ical professionals] have a responsi-
bility . . . to develop sustainable
products and processes that protect
the health, safety, and prosperity of
future generations.”
5. To Temporary Employees: “They
[chemical professionals] are also
responsible for communicating
safety concerns . . . ”2
All of these usages are ethically
weak; none meet the full set of criteria
derived above.
 In To the Public, a chemical profes-
sional is not responsible for anything
other than “active concern.”
 The language in To the Employer
addresses compliance with safety
regulations, not achievement of or
striving for actual safe work; compli-
ance and safety are entirely different
things.
 “Promoting” safety in To Students is
simply another form of “active con-
cern,” subject to the same criticisms.
 While the responsibility included in
To the Environment is laudable, its
positioning and focus limitation to
future generations make it weaker
than it could be. It also omits any
mention of maintaining safety in the
development of safe products and
processes.
 Communicating safety concerns to
temps, in To Temporary Employees,
is both limited in scope and inade-
quate on its face: does the chemical
professional have no ethical respon-
sibility if the “communication” is
ignored by the temporary worker
or contractor?
JCHAS-938; No of Pages 4
Safety is one of many responsibilities
in the ACS Code, without any rank
order of importance. The statements
on safety themselves are best described
as lukewarm or faded, lacking the
starkness of other codes, and there is
no substantive positive duty to act to
reduce risk, even if one is “concerned.”
In general, the treatment of safety in
the ACS Code lacks the central impor-
tance given it in the codes of other
scientific and engineering societies, a
significant ethical weakness.
CASE STUDY (HYPOTHETICAL)
Professor Utonium begins the synthe-
sis of Chemical X in a pressure bomb.
For technical reasons, there is concern
that the reaction mixture may explode
during the synthesis.
Under the ACS Chemical Professional’s
Code of Conduct
Professor Utonium “should actively be
concerned” with other lab workers’
safety. There is no duty expressed to
do anything; nothing is actually
required other than compliance with
the university’s health & safety poli-
cies. The spirit of the Chemical
Professional’s Code of Conduct would
be satisfied by a verbal warning to
whomever happened to be in the lab
at the time the experiment was started.
This situation does not pass muster
ethically with the principles stated
above. The possibility of harm, for
example, to an unknowing lab worker
who enters the lab to perform other
experiments, is clear. The Principle of
Nonmaleficence applies to acts of
omission as well as acts of commission,
that is, failure to ensure that all those
potentially exposed to the hazards of
the experiment are both informed of
those hazards and protected from
them is a violation — harm is done,
or at least the risk of harm is created.
The principle of Respect for Persons is
also obviously violated: other lab
workers have a right to be informed
of and protected from the experiment’s
hazards.
Under the AIChE Code of Ethics
Professor Utonium has a positive
duty to consider safety above other
Journal of Chemical Health & Safety, May/June 2017
Please cite this article in press as: Kuespert, D. R2., Safety and ethics in Acs and major scientific and engineering societies: A gap analysis.
J. Chem. Health Safety (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2017.04.001
factors — to hold safety paramount.
This implies that action to reduce or
control risk is required. Active risk-
reduction efforts, such as signage, plac-
ing a blast shield, or installing pres-
sure-relief protection are ethically
required. In taking positive action to
reduce risk, the rights of other lab
workers (as well as other potentially-
affected persons such as passers-by,
custodians, etc.) are respected. In
reducing risk to a level where harm
is not reasonably anticipated, the Prin-
ciple of Nonmaleficence is also met.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
STRENGTHENING THE POSITION OF
SAFETY IN THE ACS CODE
1. First and foremost, safety should be
communicated as one of the highest
priorities. Safety is among those few
qualities that any enterprise must
have simply to continue its exis-
tence: an organization without ade-
quate financial controls is soon prey
to an embezzler; one without ade-
quate safety controls may soon be
vaporized in an explosion.
2. The priority given to safety should
be justified on ethical grounds
through the principles of non-harm
and human rights. It should be clear
that in cases of conflict between
principles in the Code, safety is to
be considered first.
3. Statements regarding safety should
be strong, separated from other
issues, and based on ethical justifi-
cations. Mixing guidance on safety
and the sanctity of human life with
advice on media relations is
inappropriate.
4. Place and word statements on safety
so that they applies equally to all.
While the degree of responsibility
for safety depends upon the super-
visory level of the individual,
responsibility for safety exists at
all levels.
5. Add a clear positive duty to take
action in the face of safety risks.
Lack of an ethical requirement for
action to act allows practitioners to
justify inaction.
6. Introduce a positive duty to disclose
problems. It is inconsistent with
good ethical principles to remain
silent in the face of danger to self
and others. If legitimate safety con-
cerns are ignored by those in imme-
diate charge, there should be a duty
to take those concerns to a higher
level, inside or outside the
organization.
PROPOSED NEW CODE TEXT
1. Change the section headed “To the
Public” to read:
Chemical professionals shall hold
paramount the health, safety, and
welfare of the public – co-workers,
consumers, and the community as a
whole, including the environment –
taking actions to control or mitigate
current and future risks from their
work or that of others under their
supervision. They shall serve the pub-
lic interest in a manner consistent
with the above in application and
advancement of the chemical
sciences. They shall formally advise
their employers or clients (and others,
if necessary) if they believe their work
or that of others creates a threat to
life, health, or property.
2. Move the clause on public com-
ments to the next section, titled
“To the Science of Chemistry,” as
it fits better there.
3. Reword the section headed “To
Students” to read:
Chemical professionals should
regard the tutelage of students as a
trust conferred by society. They
should act to assure the safety of
students. They should promote pro-
fessional development and learning,
and treat each student fairly, respect-
fully, and without exploitation.
4. Reword the section headed “To
Temporary Employees” to read:
Chemical professionals should
establish clear communication to
coordinate the safety of work per-
formed by temporary and perma-
nent workers, taking action such
as providing necessary training to
reduce risks from work by the tem-
porary and permanent workers and
their interaction. They should estab-
lish clear job descriptions, scope of
work, terms of contract, and appro-
priate compensation prior to start of
work by contractors, interns, or
consultants.
3
JCHAS-938; No of Pages 4
The section headed “To the
Employer” may remain the same
because it describes specific employer-
employee relationships rather than
primarily addressing safety. The safety
clause in the section headed “To the
Environment” may be deleted as it is
incorporated into “To the Public,”
above.
CONCLUSION
Persons are treated in an ethical manner
not only by respecting their decisions
and protecting them from harm, but also
by making efforts to secure their well-
being.16
The ACS Chemical Professional’s
Code of Conduct was shown to possess
significant weaknesses in its treatment
of safety issues. This weakness derived
from a lack of a sound ethical founda-
tion. Comparisons were made with
several other scientific and engineering
professional organizations, and crite-
ria for effective incorporation of safety
were developed from general ethical
principles. Finally, a proposal was
made for modification of the existing
Code text to provide a strong position
on the primacy of safety in the chemi-
cal sciences.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The author declares no competing
interests.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to thank the G.W.C.
Whiting School of Engineering; the
Zanvyl Krieger School of Arts &
4 Journal of Chemical Health & Safety, May/June 2017
Please cite this article in press as: Kuespert, D. R2., Safety and ethics in Acs and major scientific and engineering societies: A gap analysis.
J. Chem. Health Safety (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2017.04.001
Sciences; and the Department of
Health, Safety, and Environment of
the Johns Hopkins University for sal-
ary support during the creation of this
work.
Opinions expressed herein are those
of the author and not necessarily those
of the Johns Hopkins University or its
affiliates.
REFERENCES
1. United Nations. Universal Declaration
of Human Rights. United Nations Gen-
eral Assembly Resolution 217A: Paris
(FR), 1948-12-10, Article 3.
2. American Chemical Society. The Che-
mical Professional’s Code of Conduct.
American Chemical Society: Washing-
ton, DC (US), 2016-12-02, https://www.
acs.org/content/acs/en/careers/career-
services/ethics/the-chemical-professionals-
code-of-conduct.html, retrieved 2017-02-
09.
3. American Chemical Society. Extract
from section titled “To the Public.”
4. American Society of Mechanical Engi-
neers (ASME). Code of Ethics of Engi-
neers. American Society of Mechanical
Engineers: New York, NY (US), 2012-
02-01, https://www.asme.org/getmedia/
9EB36017-FA98-477E-8A73-77B04B36D
410/P157_Ethics.aspx, retrieved 2016-11-
03.
5. Association for Computing Machinery
(ACM). ACM Code of Ethics and
Professional Conduct. Association for
Computing Machinery: New York,
NY (US), 1992-10-16, http://www.acm.
org/about-acm/acm-code-of-ethics-and-
professional-conduct?searchterm=ethics,
retrieved 2016-11-03.
6. American Institute of Chemical
Engineers (AIChE). AIChE Code of
Ethics. American Institute of Chemical
Engineers: New York, NY (US), 2015-
11, http://www.aiche.org/about/code-ethics,
retrieved 2016-11-03.
7. ACS. Position paper 2016-2019: Safety
in the Chemical Enterprise. American
Chemical Society: Washington, DC
(US), 2016-09, https://www.acs.org/
content/acs/en/policy/publicpolicies/
science-policy/safety-in-the-chemistry
-enterprise.html, retrieved 2017-02-09.
8. Bertozzi, C.R. Ingredients for a Positive
Safety Culture. ACS Central Science.
American Chemical Society: Washing-
ton, DC (US), 2016-11-23. DOI: 10.
1021/acscentsci.6b00341.
9. National Commission for the Protec-
tion of Human Subjects of Biomedical
and Behavioral Research. The Belmont
Report: Ethical Principles and Guide-
lines for the Protection of Human Sub-
jects of Research. U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare:
Washington, DC (US), 1979-04-18,
http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-
policy/belmont-report/, retrieved 2016-11-
03.
10. ASME. Code of Ethics of Engineers.
“Fundamental principles.”
11. ASME. Code of Ethics of Engineers.
“Fundamental principles.”
12. ACM. ACM Code of Ethics and Profes-
sional Conduct. Section 1, “General
Moral Imperatives.”
13. AIChE. AIChE Code of Ethics.
Preamble.
14. AIChE. AIChE Code of Ethics. First
element.
15. AIChE. AIChE Code of Ethics. Second
element.
16. National Commission for the Protec-
tion of Human Subjects of Biomedical
and Behavioral Research. The Belmont
Report: Ethical Principles and Guide-
lines for the Protection of Human Sub-
jects of Research. Part B: Ethical Prin-
ciples—Beneficience.