EGHAM, UK 15 - 20 SEPTEMBER 1990




Guillermo A. Lemarchand

The Need for a Hippocratic Oath for Scientists Hippocrates was a physician of ancient Greece, who is traditionally regarded as 'the father of medicine'. According to Soranus, a Greek physician of the 2nd century AD, he was born on the island of Cos, off the coast of Asia Minor in 460 BC, and died in Larissa in 377 BC. Undoubtedly, Hippocrates was an historical figure, who exerted a permanent influence on the development of medicine and on the ideals and ethics of the physician. The Hippocratic Oath 1 is an ethical code attributed to Hippocrates, adopted as a guide for conduct by the medical profession throughout the ages and still used in the graduation ceremonies of many medical schools. In its beginnings, the Hippocratic School adopted the oath not in the sense of a law; but as an ethical or ideal code, a commitment to assume correct attitudes and not with a punitory character. The text of the famous physician was divided into two parts: the first sets out the obligations of the physician to students of medicine and the duties of the pupil to his teacher, while the second establishes the pledge of the physicians to prescribe only beneficial treatments according to their ability and judgement and abstain from causing pain or harm to living beings, taking this example as an ethical guide for life, both personally and professionally. This pledge appeared in a time of crisis when medicine was still under the influence of magic and ignorance. Hippocrates was the first to apply the experimental method and observations to his treatments. His work Corpus Hippocraticum - which included the oath - was a classical text in medicine until the 18th century. As time went on, the Hippocratic Oath became the nucleus of all medical ethics. In all the countries, in all epochs in which monotheism, in its purely religious or its more secularized form, was the accepted creed, the Hippocratic Oath was applauded as the embodiment of truth. Not only Jews and Christians, but also the Arabs, the mediaeval doctors, men of the Renaissance, scientists of the Enlightenment, and scholars of the 19th century, embraced the ideals of the Oath. In one way or another, this pledge has served as a guide for medical practice for more than two thousand years. It is the best-known form for such a pledge. Clearly, however, medicine is not only the biomedical science that gives rise to ethical issues. The most obvious area in which scientists need to examine their social

* This is an abridged version of the proffered paper. The complete paper containing the texts of the various proposed oaths - can be obtained from the author or from the Pugwash London Office.

responsibilities is that of warfare. According to data provided by the United Nations, the world spends more than 900 billion dollars per year for military purposes. Between 30 and 40 per cent of the total scientific and technical capability of the Planet Earth is invested in research and development (R&D) for these objectives. There are more than 750 000 war researchers in the world today, and this number is doubled if we include assistant researchers2, against a maximum of 500 peace researchers. The ratio is less than 1 to 1000, and even that is far too optimistic. Today, scientists, engineers and technicians have a very special moral responsibility because the creation and improvement of military instruments of generalized destruction fall within their specific field. A new dimension to the responsibilities of the researcher is growing, together with the realization that scientific research, both through its ideas and its technological applications, has a significant, and not always welcome, impact on society. The researcher is now expected to give serious forethought to the long-term results of his work, and to the possible uses and misuses to which it may be put. However, is there any universal pattern for correct ethical behaviour? The concept of what is the 'right attitude' and the 'wrong attitude' varies from one person to another, from one society to another, and from one time to another. It is impossible to establish a fixed criterion of 'good' and 'evil' for all humankind. These are dynamic and relative qualities. However, some general characteristics may be established that may help us in our analysis. In a world where defence is regarded as a legitimate activity, it is not clear to many people that scientists have a right to rule out activities whose effects fall on society at large. We have to think and discuss if we need to change the present destructive paradigm. The present situation is one of unstable equilibrium. The systematic increase of military power and the systematic decrease in national and 'world' security constitutes a dilemma for which no technical solution exists.3 We need to change our way of thinking and acting (in the spirit of the RussellEinstein Manifesto), corresponding to some sort of 'Universal Humanism', where planetary needs should be first, where we should think that we are responsible for the present administration of the Earth's resources and the survival of life in our planet for future generations. If we analyse the influence of scientific and technological development on modern society we can verify that this progress has been possible thanks to the work and strong endeavour of men and women from past generations. We must think that the present accelerated scientific progress will have a great effect on future generations. The future cannot speak by itself. Therefore, it is up to our generation to speak and act to preserve the Earth for the next generation. This is our responsibility and duty as citizens of Planet Earth. In this context, the Cousteau Society, headed by Jacques-Yves Cousteau, has proposed an interesting 'Bill of Rights
for Future Generations'.

The concept of what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' is closely related to individual
knowledge and experience. Therefore, greater knowledge calls for greater responsibility.

In general, the concept of 'good' must be more demanding for the 'more advanced' human groups. It is to be expected that future generations will have a more rigorous concept of what is good, because of social and technical evolution and development. When we are trying to study the attitudes of scientists towards warfare, it is extremely difficult to judge individual responsibilities. The arguments usually given by men and women to justify their work in the design and construction of weapons are

diverse and profound. The difference between the level of responsibility of a scientist and anyone else's is based on a certain difference of knowledge. The understanding of a researcher who is developing a new nuclear weapon, about the consequences of his work, for example, nuclear winter, or of a biologist working on biological weapons, about the dissemination of 'yellow rain', are quite different from the understanding of the politicians who vote the budget for that kind of R&D. Of course, political leaders and other manipulators of social psychology have an even greater responsibility in the establishment of world policies. The problem of how a person is to act if the government does not forbid certain actions or if his society expects a behaviour that his conscience considers to be wrong, is undoubtedly a very old one. Every morally important aspect of our institutions, laws and customs, may be deduced from the interpretation of the sense of justice of countless individuals. This is one of the reasons why it is so important that scientists' attitudes should be correct. As Albert Einstein4 pointed out, “Institutions are
impotent, in a moral sense, unless they have the support of the sense of responsibility of all living individuals. Every effort to elevate and strengthen this sense of responsibility in the individual is an important service to mankind.”

Our life is an unbroken succession of experiences where we have to learn to practice and extend our capacity of discern. The moral law embodied in the categorical imperative of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is: “Act only as if the maxim from which you proceed were to become, through your will, a universal law.” The most appropriate way to establish the difference between one attitude and another is a detailed examination of our deeds, thoughts, and feelings, trying to observe ourselves as if we were studying a completely different person, performing a Cartesian introspection based on a true knowledge of our circumstances and the consequences of our actions. This continuous exercise of holding fast to the truth with all the powers of the spirit was called by Gandhi Satyagraha (devotion to truth). This internal task is nothing other than the application of the scientific method to the study of our behaviour. As Blaise Pascal remarked: “To be good in thinking is the main principle of

The Hippocratic Oath for scientists is an attempt to establish a kind of public commitment about the attitudes to take, assuming the responsibility for one's actions, thinking constantly and carefully before acting. It is a public undertaking to practice constantly Satayagraha with oneself. It is in times of crisis such as the present, or when medicine was born, that society demands greater responsibility from the 'administrators of knowledge.' As Thomas S Kuhn5 said: “Crisis is a necessary condition for the birth of a new theory” (in our case a new common ethical system of values). We are living in a transition phase. As proof that there is a need to reject old paradigms, there are now many proposals for Hippocratic Oaths for Scientists that have risen independently and within a short period of time. This shows that the scientific community is ready to undertake this kind of commitment. These points towards the necessity of establishing a strong ethical reference for the individual, increasing the degree of commitment of the scientist/technician to his society and his planet. Table 1 shows a list of the main proposals of recent years.

662 Past Attempts, Experiences and Results The idea of a Hippocratic Oath as an ethical tool of modern society has come of age. In September 1969, M. Thring6 proposed at the WFSW International Symposium on the Relations between Science and Technology a Hippocratic Oath for Engineers and Applied Scientists. He had 10 000 copies privately printed and has since then been distributing them at public lectures. He has had some success in persuading individual scientists and engineers to accept the obligation, but has not so far been able to persuade any university or professional institution to adopt it. In 1970, Charles Schwartz, from the University of California at Berkeley, with some colleagues from Stanford, sought to have all his students sign an oath that they would not use the knowledge gained in his classes to harm the humanity. The administrators blocked that idea.

Table 1

Ethical Commitments and Oaths in the Nuclear Age Year
1945 1969 1970 1972 1973 1981 1982 1982 1983 1983 1983 1984 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1987 1987 1987 1987 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1989

Nuclear Age Oath Bratislava Oath Berkeley /Stanford Group PUGWASH Pledge Engineer's Oath Engineers Creed Erice Statement Moral Code for Scientists* Nuclear Age Hippocratic Oath Student Pugwash Proposal * Sara's Oath Dept of Physics at Berkeley SDI Pledge Engineers and Scientists Oath * AESFA proposal * Science for Peace Endorsement PUGWASH Appeal Committee of Responsible Genetics Environ and Social Resp Pledge IPPNW Argentina Branch Propsl Hip Oath for Sci,Tech & Eject Buenos Aires Oath Hippocratic Oath for Scientists Hippoc Oath for Mathematicians Stanford's President Address * Earth Citizenship Oath Hippocratic Oath-The Humanist*

Gene Weltfish M W Thring Charles Schwartz WG8 22 Pugwash Conference Charles Susskind Nat Soc of Profes Engineers Dirac/Kapitza/Zichichi Daniel E Harris WHOGA/lPPNW US Student Pugwash HTPFP Students/graduates J Kogut et al UNESCO's Athens Meeting CA-CECEN Peter Wills Philip Smith Jonathan King M Nicodemus/J Berman Emanuel Levin Inst for Social Invent G A Lemarchand et al. David Krieger Chandler Davis Donald Kennedy David Krieger André Bacard

* No special wording was suggested


In 1973, Charles Susskind7, also a faculty member of Berkeley, wrote an Engineer's Oath, adapted from the modified form of the Hippocratic oath, adopted by the World Medical Association in 1948, and known as the 'Declaration of Geneva'. A number of prominent engineers expressed various degrees of agreement with the concept. Others mentioned difficulties arising from the conflict of loyalties between one's employer and society at large, the fact that many engineers worked in defence industries, and the fact that some considered that few of those general principles are
very helpful in resolving the practical moral decisions with which the engineer is faced in real life".

Working Group 8 of the 22nd Pugwash Conference recommended for consideration of the 'Continuing Committee' the evolution of a pledge for all scientists8. Unfortunately, the 'Committee' did not act on this recommendation. In the 32nd Pugwash Conference, Philip Smith9 presented the results of the first ten years of this Pledge. Between 1972-82, a number (23) of students in physics and astronomy at the University of Groningen, solemnly enunciated (a Dutch translation of) this pledge at the close of the academic examination ceremony at the end of their studies. Some 8-9 per cent of the students wish to take this pledge. Professor Philip Smith felt that “the experimental period with the Pugwash Pledge has had a positive effect on students and their surroundings.” In June 1979, the first Student Pugwash Conference on Science and Ethical Responsibility10 was held in San Diego. Many of the participants, at this excellent conference were spurred to establish Student Pugwash Organizations at both national and international levels. Among students, there was a great scope for a discussion of the ethical issues that may arise in such work. In 1983, based on the Berkeley Stanford Project of 1970, this group began to spread the idea of an ethical oath for scientists and gained moral support in the Pope's address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, in November 1983. One year later, a group of physics undergraduates, graduates and faculty members of the Department of Physics of Berkeley, met informally to discuss issues related to the militarization of physics: the group was motivated by concern about the threat of nuclear war and the role that physicists play in the evolution of that threat. In May 1984, a special Symposium was held under the sponsorship of the faculty department on “Connections between Physics and the Military”11. Later on, some students campaigned for the option at their departmental commencement ceremony to voluntarily pledge to refuse to take employment with the military or a military contractor. After a student vote showed overwhelming support for the pledge, the department chairman voided the election results and denied permission for the pledge to be incorporated into the graduation, saying that the parents of a couple of graduates were very irritated by the whole affair. In January 1986, at a conference organized by UNESCO, held in Athens, Dr Marie Francoise Farge stated that present technology was mainly a by-product of research for military purposes and there was no clear distinction today between military and non-military research. She went on to say that the quality of research depended on the exchange of information and that scientists should be aware of the

danger of military secrecy, for the normal development of research itself. She proposed an oath, in the spirit of Hippocrates' Oath that young scientists could take, pledging not to undertake classified research. This statement was included in the final conference statements. Some months later, an Argentine group CA-CECEN, presented a six points document to the annual meeting of the Argentine Society of Physics Students. This document was distributed among over 2000 scientists, mainly representative members of the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU). We received many comments and suggestions that were taken into account for the elaboration of a project that was presented to the International Symposium on Scientists, Peace and Disarmament in April 1988. There were problems with some of the points. For example, Richard L Garwin presented his disagreement on the item “avoidance of access to any kind of educational media of persons related to bellicose activities.” For instance, he was a consultant to the US Department of Defense (and even did some work giving advice to SDI). He asked us if he should be denied access to the media. A very interesting and complementary idea of the oath was developed by Peter Wills from the University of Auckland. In 1986, he began to publish at the end of all his papers an endorsement, to show his opposition to the arms race and the use of scientific knowledge for destruction. No editor has refused to publish it, but several considered it silly. When he worked for the US Government at the National Institute of Health, in 1988, they made him add the disclaimer saying that “it was not an official opinion”12. Mostly, other scientists ask why he does it, when he knows that the military will use his research if they want to. He once responded to a reprint request from a division of the French Army, by sending a letter saying that he did not want to help the French Military in any way, because they had just murdered Fernando Pereira, aboard the Greenpeace boat Rainbow Warrior, in Auckland Harbour. With the sponsorship of Professor Eric Fawcett, from the University of Toronto, they began an international campaign inviting their colleagues to use this endorsement when they publish. They consider that those who shared their concern have the opportunity to participate in their attempt to separate their research from military goals. In 1987, students from the Humboldt State University in Northern California organized an extraordinary initiative: the establishment of a Graduation Pledge of Environmental and Social Responsibility. The text was prepared by Matt Nicodemus and Jenny Berman. Since that time, an international campaign is underway with pledge ceremonies currently happening at Stanford University, University of California at Santa Cruz, MIT, Sonoma State University, University of Utah, Trinity College and many others. The support that was expressed by the Stanford President speech at the University's 97th Commencement on June 12, 1988, was very important. President Donald Kennedy (a member of the Department of Defense University Forum) praised the pledge. He said that “it should be as acceptable to the politically
conservative as to the liberal, because it does something we all need to do more of - that is - it helps us focus on the consequences of what we do.”13

The Institute for Social Inventions of London has recently prepared (with the full cooperation of Professor M W Thring), a Hippocratic Oath for Scientists, Engineers and Executives. There are 100 eminent signatories of this oath, including eighteen Nobel Laureates. Also lending their support are the Vice Chancellors or

equivalents of fifteen universities around the world. This oath has been endorsed by the American Engineers for Social Responsibility. This is one of the most successful proposals nowadays. A little over two years ago, the International Symposium on Scientists, Peace and Disarmament14, took place in the University of Buenos Aires, sponsored by UNESCO. Almost a hundred scientists from the most diverse disciplines and representing over a dozen countries, took part, the importance of the meeting was enhanced by the presence of the Director of UNESCO/ROSTLAC, Dr G Malek; the President of the WFSW, Dr J M Legay, and the President of F AS, Dr J J Stone. Two very significant events took place during that conference: • in a joint declaration, the executive committees of the Argentine and Brazilian Physical Societies published a document expressing their will not to develop nuclear technology for military purposes; the assembly approved a formula for a Hippocratic Oath for Scientists, known as the Buenos Aires Oath15

The first results of that proposal were: • • It was adopted by a scientific Congress sponsored by UNESCO and signed by over sixty scientists from a dozen countries. It became an official graduation pledge in the Faculty of Exact and Natural Sciences of the University of Buenos Aires. In recent graduation ceremonies, it was adopted by over 80 per cent of the graduating students (including the new PhDs). Over 1000 international top-level scientists have signed it to date, including half a dozen Nobel laureates. The General Assembly of the Argentine Astronomical Society passed a resolution at its 1988 meeting, supporting the initiative of the pledge in national universities. Its adoption was recommended by representatives of nineteen countries in the Second International Conference Youth Building the Future, University of Waterloo, Canada, August 1988. A similar recommendation was passed by representatives of sixteen countries in the Third International Conference, Youth Building the Future, University of Buenos Aires, August 1989. During the last plenary session of the Simposio de Ética en la Situación Contemporánea16 (organized by UNESCO/ROSTLAC-Uruguay, the Brazilian Society for the Advancement of Science and University of Sao Paulo, Brazil, and the Center for Advanced Studies of the University of Buenos Aires, Argentina), a resolution was included in the conclusions recommending the adoption of the Buenos Aires Oath by individuals, universities, research centres and professional societies.

666 Recently, David Krieger (Nuclear Age Peace Foundation), proposed to Robin A Ludwig (Chief UN Peace Studies Unit), to distribute, among individuals involved in the International Week for Science and Peace, all the information concerning Hippocratic Oaths in Modern Society17. Ethical responsibility is always and inescapably a problem for the individual, but the starting point for any examination of the meaning of ethical responsibility for scientists must be the recognition that, especially under modern conditions, science is by much a social enterprise. A great number of professional associations have adopted codes of ethics which members are required to subscribe to. Lars Rydén18 (Uppsala University, Sweden) made a survey of such codes and found that there are more than 300 codes of conduct, standards of conduct, policy statements, and so on. Several of the codes are directly related to research work, while the majority refer to professional activities of academically trained individuals, such as physicians, engineers, lawyers and psychologists. Professor Ryden showed that no rule in the codes of ethics examined has been found that refers to military R&D. In a previous survey, published in 1978, by Deborah Wallance19 (American Fisheries Society), it was established that “one topic studiously avoided in the public welfare sections of all the ethical codes was the weapon issue”. She requested that her sponsor should at least recognize the existence of ethical ambiguities connected with military and intelligence agency employment. The first Code of Ethics for Scientists that includes the military issue was made in 1984, at Uppsala University, by Bengt Gustafsson, Lars Ryden, Gunnar Tibell and Peter Wallensteen.20 In the same year, a similar Code of Ethics for Scientists was published by a group in the DDR led by Hans-Peter Gensichen.21 Another example, where the need for a code of conduct, especially in the transfer from military to civilian activities was 'studiously avoided', can be found in the text of an ethics booklet22 issued to young scientists by the US National Academy of Sciences. The 22-page publication was designed to guide graduate students in the ethical conduct of scientific research, and addresses fundamental issues of data reporting accuracy, giving proper credit for, discoveries and maintaining integrity at the laboratory bench. Not a single word is found referring to the weapons issue. This booklet was circulated to 120 university campuses and free copies were sent to the student members of the different societies that belong to the Academy. Scientists as 'an occupational group' have become very concerned about their rights and obligations since the Second World War, and this development has been fuelled by greater awareness of the increasing use of the scientific knowledge for destructive purposes. The founding of the World Federation of Scientific Workers (WFSW) in 1946 allowed scientists for the first time to develop and express these concerns in a collective manner and at an international level. One of the landmarks in these efforts was the adoption by the WFSW in 1948 of the Charter for Scientific Workers, which set .out a basis for a fruitful, responsible and harmonious relationship between scientific researchers and the "wider community. Table 2 documents three decades of work at international, nongovernmental and intergovernmental levels. During September 1988, the presidents of 45 universities from all regions and many cultures of the world, having convened at Talloires, France, declared that "they believe that the universities of the entire world bear profound moral responsibilities to

increase understanding of the awful risks of the nuclear age and to reduce those risks. Charged by our societies to prepare their students for life, they are committed as educators to prevent global death". They have joined in supporting research and

teaching programmes that will increase the relationship between peace and development, and the sources of injustice and hunger. The UN have recently organized a meeting of New Trends in Science and Technology Matters: Consequences for Peace and International Security. This Conference was held at Sendai, Japan, on 16-19 April, 1990. A very interesting discussion took place about the need of an International Code of Ethics for Scientists23. The participants agreed about the difficulties of getting an adequate equilibrium between academic freedom and social responsibility, but hoped that this initiative would help to increase awareness among scientists.

Table 2 Certain Codes and Standards in the International Context
The Charter for Scientific Workers of the World Federation of Scientific Workers (WFSW), adopted February, 1948. The International Code of Medical Ethics of the World Medical Association (WMA), adopted October, 1949 and revised 1968 and 1983, including (Part IV) the Declaration of Geneva. The Declaration of Helsinki: WMA Recommendations Guiding Physicians in Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects, adopted 1964 and revised in 1975 and 1983. UNESCO Recommendation on the Status of Scientific Researchers, adopted 20 November, 1974. The Declaration of Tokyo: the WMA Guidelines for Medical Doctors Concerning Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment in Relation to Detention and Imprisonment, adopted October, 1975. The Declaration of Hawaii of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA), adopted in August, 1977 and revised in 1983. UNESCO definitions for the purposes of international standardization of statistics on science and technology, Recommendation to Member States, adopted November 1978.

In addition, the United National General Assembly (UNGA) passed a special resolution on February 7, 1989, about 'Science and Peace'. Here among other very important statements, the UNGA affirms that:
"it is necessary to promote greater awareness among scientists worldwide of the usefulness of science to increase international peace, security and cooperation, the social and economic development of mankind, the promotion of human rights and the protection of the environment; the need for scientists to establish a free and open dialogue between

668 one another, and with political leaders and the public in general, with regard to scientific developments and their present and potential implications for our civilization .... considering the importance of encouraging scientists to work towards constructive objectives, to improve the climate for arms control and disarmament, and to promote the dialogue on important topics in connection with the positive contributions that the scientific knowledge can make to peace, security and ecological balance .... " These last statements, the Pugwash Thinking from the Russell-Einstein Manifesto; the need for the culture of love in the Erice Statement and all the proposals, resolutions, declarations, and so on, made by individuals or groups of scientists in the recent history, are different manifestations of a new paradigm. As was pointed out by the mathematician Mischa Cotlar24:
“ if mankind has made progress, if today's average man is conscientious of human rights, it is because there has been a pioneer who spontaneously dived into the river to save a stranger or who shared food and fire with a fellow man. The world needs men who will firmly hold righteousness, men who have looked deeply into the origin of violence, who are sensitive to the beauty of wisdom and love, revolutionaries who will drive away ignorance.”

In ancient times, where the magic and superstition theories were dominant, Hippocrates realized that the patient's life depended on the ethical attitude of the physicians in the prescription of treatment. Nowadays, when highly qualified minds in scientific and technological knowledge are investing several billion hours per year developing technologies for the purpose of destruction, we have to be able, as Louis de Broglie25 remarked, to survive the consequences of our attainments and find in the development of our spiritual life and in the uplifting of our moral ideals, the wisdom not to abuse our increased capabilities. References
1. L Edelstein, 'The Hippocratic Oath', Bulletin of the History of Medicine, Suppl No 1 (1943) and W H S Jones, 'The Doctor's Oath', 1924. The original version of the oath is as follows:

"I swear by Apollo the physician, by Aesculapius, by Hygeia, Panacea, and all the gods and goddesses, that, according to my best ability and judgement, I will keep this oath and stipulation; to reckon him who taught me this art equally dear to me as my parents; to share my substance with him and relieve his necessities if required; to regard his offspring as my own brothers and to teach them this art if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or stipulation, and that by precept, oral teaching, and every other mode of instruction [ will impart a knowledge of the art to my own sons and to those of my teachers, and to disciples bound by stipulations and oath, according to the laws of medicine, but to no others.” ''I will follow that method of treatment which, according to my ability and judgement, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give

669 no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest and such counsel; furthermore, I will not give to a woman an instrument to produce abortion..” "With purity and with holiness I will pass my life and practice my art. I will not cut a person who is suffering with a stone, but will leave that to be done by practitioners of such work. Into whatever houses I enter I will go into them for the benefit of the sick and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief and corruption, and, further, from the seduction of females or males, bond or free.” "Whatever in connection with my professional practice, or not in connection with it, I may see or hear in the lives of men which ought not to be spoken abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept secret.” "While I continue to keep this oath inviolate, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of my art, respected always by all men, but should I trespass and violate this oath, may the reverse be my lot.” 2. SIPRI Yearbook 1987, pp 153-154 and in L Yunying, La Influencia de la Carrera Armamentista en la Economía in Desarme y Desarrollo, Fundación Arturo Illía-Grupo Editor Latinoamericano, Buenos Aires, 1989. 3. H F York, Making Weapons, Talking Peace, Basic Books, 1987, p 199. 4. Open letter to the Society for Social Responsibility in Science, published in Science, Vol. 112, 22 December, 1950, p 760. 5. T S Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, 1962, 1970. 6. M W Thring, The Social Responsibility of the Engineers, WFSW Bratislava Symposium, Scientific World, XIII, 6, pp 11-14, 1969. Also in New Scientist, 7 January, 1971. Comments in W A Wooster, 'An Oath for Scientists', Scientific World, XIV, 41 1970, P 18. 7. C Susskind, Understanding Technology, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore & London, 1973, p 118. 8. A proposal from a Pugwash Group Meeting in Oxford, 1972, made by Professor H Wergerland Trodheim, as a suggestion for a pledge to be adopted by scientists. The sentence reads as follows: “ ... I will not use my scientific training for any purpose which I believe is intended to harm human beings. I shall strive for peace, justice and the betterment of the human conditions”. Comments appeared in J Rotblat, 1984, 'Digest of Pugwash Discussions Relating to WG6, Public Opinion and Arms Control, for the 34th Pugwash Annual Conference, Bjorkliden, Sweden. 9. P Smith, 'Ten Years Experience with the Pugwash Pledge', 32nd Pugwash Conference, Warsaw, 1982. 10. A Lakoff (Ed) Science and Ethical responsibility, Stanford, Addison-Wesley Pub Co, 1980, Proceedings of the US Student Pugwash Conference, University of California, San Diego, June 19-26, 1979. 11. C Schwartz, 'Physics and the Military', Physics Today, October 1984, pp 9,12,124 and see also the letters in Physics Today, March 1985, pp 9,11,13,15. 12. P Wills, Microbial Pathogenesis, 1989, 6: 235-249. 13. 'Kennedy Addresses Timeless Question: Life After Stanford', The Stanford University Campus Report, June 15, 1988, pp 9-23. 14. G A Lemarchand and A R Pedace (Eds), 'Scientists, Peace and Disarmament', World Scientific, Singapore, 1988.

670 15. G A Lemarchand, 'Project for an oath or Commitment on Graduation for Scientists and Technicians', Proceedings of the International Symposium on Scientists, Peace and Disarmament, G A Lemarchand and A R Pedace (Eds), World Scientific, Singapore, 1988. 16. Ciencia Hoy, Vol. 1, No. 4, p. 77, October/November, 1989. 17. G A Lemarchand, A Hippocratic Oath for Scientists in Modern Society, Simposio de Ética en la Situación Contemporánea, Bs.As., September 4-8, 1989. 18. L Rydén, Ethical Rules in Basic and Applied Research, Seminar on Ethics in the Sciences, Uppsala University, March 1984. 19. Deborah N Wallance, Professional Ethics in Applied Sciences and Engineers: Results of a Small Survey, Fisheries 3: 16-21,42, July/August, 1978. 20. The Uppsala Code of Ethics for Scientists, Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 21, No 4, 1984. 21. H P Gensichen, Wissenschaftethik heute, KF19-84, Fur innerkirchlichen Gebrauch. 22. On Being a Scientist, Committee on the Conduct of Science, US National Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press, Washington DC, 1989. 23. UN Boletín de Desarme, June, 1990. 24. M Cotlar, La Responsabilidad del Científico, Astrofísica, No 5, Ano II, pp. 95-100, 1987. 25. L De Broglie, Física y Microfísica, Espasa-Calpe, Buenos Aires, 1951, p 222.

APPENDIX: “Buenos Aires Oath” “Aware that, in the absence of ethical control, science and its products can damage society and its future, I pledge that my own scientific capabilities Hill never be employed merely for remuneration or prestige or on instruction of employers or political leaders only, but solely on my personal belief and social responsibility –based on my own knowledge and on consideration of the circumstances and the possible consequences of my work- that the scientific or technical research I undertake is truly in the best interests of society and peace.”

Spanish version (Official graduation optional oath text used at the School of Exact and Natural Sciences of the University of Buenos Aires, Res.C.S. 3768/89):

“Teniendo conciencia de que la ciencia y en particular sus resultados pueden ocasionar perjuicios a la sociedad y al ser humano cuando se encuentran ausentes los controles éticos: ¿Juráis que la investigación científica y tecnológica que desarrollareis será para beneficio de la humanidad y en favor de la paz, que os comprometéis firmemente a que vuestra capacidad como científico nunca servirá a fines que lesionen la dignidad humana, guiándoos por vuestras convicciones y creencias personales, asentadas en un auténtico conocimientos de las situaciones que os rodean y de las posibles consecuencias de los resultados que puedan derivarse de vuestra labor, no anteponiendo la remuneración o el prestigio, ni subordinándoos a los intereses de empleadores o dirigentes políticos? Si así no lo hiciereis, vuestra conciencia os lo demande.”