Why Must Scientists become More Ethically Sensitive Than They Used to be?

Author(s): John Ziman

Source: Science, New Series, Vol. 282, No. 5395 (Dec. 4, 1998), pp. 1813-1814
Published by: American Association for the Advancement of Science
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2896986
Accessed: 23/09/2009 03:44

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aaas.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Association for the Advancement of Science is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Science.

http://www.jstor.org
 L WHY MUST SCIENTISTSBECOMLE
AMEIANTOF
ADVANCEMENTOF
MORE ETHICALLYSENSITIVE
SCIENCE
THAN THEY USED TO BE? 0/
150 YEARS E 1848-1998

Fifty years ago when I came into science, we nizedthatit almostseemedlikethe anarchist's
rarelytalked about ethical issues. I don't dream:an active,orderlyrepublicof free-bom
meanthattherewereno such issues,or that citizens with no central government.It func-
ct
scientistswerenot, individuallyor in unoffi- tionedthrougha numberof well-established
cial groups,speakingandactingaboutthem. practicessuch as peer review,respectfor priori-
Butethicsas suchdid not figureregularlyin ty of discovery,
comprehensive citationof thelit-
publicdiscourseaboutscience,in or beyond ? L erature, meritocratic
preferment on thebasisof
the scientificworld. researchperformance, and so on. Although
And yet nowadays,the ethics of science thesepracticeswereneverformallycodifiedor
not only occupies media slots and Sunday systematically enforced,theygearedsmoothly
supplements. It also energizes scholarly together.In 1942 RobertMertonarguedthat
books,journals,conferencesand curricula. thiswasbecausetheysatisfieda setof "norms"
Havingspentmost of my life urgingmy col- thattogetherconstitutean "ethos"for science.
leaguesto be more "sociallyresponsible," I Merton'sanalysiswas highlyidealized,andis
am not unhappyaboutthis. But how did this JOHN ZIMAN was rejectedby mostpresent-day sociologists.Nev-
abruptchangeof attitudecome about?Why broughtup in New Zealand, ertheless,I believethatit stillprovidesthebest
are scientistsnow expectedto be so much studiedat Oxford,and lectured theoretical framework foran understanding of
moreethicallysensitivethantheyusedto be? at Cambridge,beforebecoming how these practicesinteractto producethe sort
Some would see this as no more thana of knowledgethatwe recognizeas peculiarly
naturalconsequenceof the increasinginflu- professorof theoreticalphysics 44scientific."
ence of science on society,magnified,per- at the Universityof Bristolin
hapsby mediafrenzy.Otherssee it as the lat- 1964. He was chairmanof the
Paradoxically, however,this "ethos"has
practicallyno conventional"ethical"dimen-
H7
est battle front in the perennial"science CouncilforScienceand Soci- sion.At most,it definesa basicstructure fora
wars."But I go furtherand interpretit as perfectlydemocratic, universal"speechcom-
symptomaticof thetransformation of science etyfrom1976 to 1990, and has munity." Whilethisis an essentialprerequisite
into a new typeof socialinstitution. As their writtenextensivelyon various forethicaldebate,suchdebateis banishedfrom
productsbecomemoretightlywovenintothe aspectsof the social relations academicscienceitselfby Merton'snormof ,2
socialfabric,scientistsarehavingto perform of science and technology. "disinterestedness."Inpursuitof complete"ob-
new rolesin whichethicalconsiderations can jectivity"-admittedlya major virtue-the
no longerbe sweptaside. normrulesthatall researchresultsshouldbe conducted, present-
Fifty yearsago the worldof sciencewas dividedinto two ed, and discussed quite impersonally,as if producedby androids 0=
typesof institutions.* Inuniversities andin manypubliclyftnd- orangels.
ed researchorganizations peoplepracticed"academicscience"; But ethicalissuesalwaysinvolvehuman"interests." Ethics
in industrialandgovernmental researchanddevelopmentlabo- is notjust anabstractintellectualdiscipline.It is aboutthecon-
ratoriestheypracticed"industrial science."Theseweretwodis- flictsthatarisein tryingto meetrealhumanneedsandvalues. Ll I
tinct cultures,closely linkedin manyways, but dealingwith Theofficialethosof academicsciencesystematically shutsout
ethicalissuesquitedifferently. all suchconsiderations.
Academicsciencewas intenselyindividualistic. Peopleheld Actually,thisnormis notactivatedagainstonemajorhuman
personalappointmentseamed by publishedcontributions to interest the questfor knowledge.Scientistsare certainlynot
knowledge.Universitiesandresearchinstituteshadlittledirect supposedto be "disinterested" aboutthepromotionof theirown
influenceon theirresearch.Academicemployeesdecidedfor discoveriesortheadvancement of knowledgein general.Infact,
themselveswhattheywouldinvestigateandhowtheywouldgo thisinterestis oftengivenpriorityoverother,less exalted,con- 7"
aboutit. The only constraint-animmenselypowerfulone in cemss,such as the welfareof experimental animals,and even
practice wasthattheresultsof theirresearchwouldbe closely overwiderhumaninterestssuchas thelong-termconsequences
scrutinizedby othermembersof one of the innumerable spe- of publishingresearchthatmightbe usedforevil.
cializedresearchcommunities thatpartition thescientificworld. The important pointis thatthis "noethics"principleis not
Academicscientists belongedto a worldwide institutional web. justanobsoletemodulethatcanbe uninstalled witha keystroke.
Theproduction of reliablepublicknowledgewasso looselyorga- Itis anintegralpartof a complexculturalform.Merton'snorms
combineinvariouswaysto motivateandlicensea widerangeof
z
u
The author is at 27 Little LondonGreen,Oakley,Aylesbury,Buckinghamshire practices andprocesses.Thereis no spacebetweenthemforany
HP18 9QL,UK.E-mail:solzim@compuserve.com othervaluesor virtuesthansupposedlyobjective,disinterested
z truth.Academicscientistshavealways,of course,broughtethi-
0 'J. M. Ziman, An Introduction to Science Studies (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cam-
bridge, 1984); M. Gibbons et al., The New Production of Knowledge (Sage, London,
cal considerations intotheirscientificwork.Buttheyhavehad
1994); J. M. Ziman, Prometheus Bound: Science in a Dynamic Steady State (Cam- to smugglethemin fromprivatelife, frompolitics,fromreli-
bridgeUniv.Press,Cambridge,1996); J. M.Ziman,Nature 382, 751 (1996). gion, or from sheerhumanitarian sympathyAnd even now,

www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 282 4 DECEMBER1998