Ethics In Science Lectures

Lecturer: Dr. Julian Lamont, Philosophy

Head Tutor: Kevin Lowe, Philosophy
(Please direct your email enquiries, in the first
instance, to Kevin Lowe [email protected]

– please put STAT1201 in the subject line)

1
 Blackboard Site:
Ethics material is under “Ethics”

• The main reading for the Ethics Section is

available at the UQ Stat1201 Reading List Page:
Chapter 18: Core issues in professional scientific ethics
Under the details of the article it will say:
“Digitisation
To view the digitised content for this item please log in”
You will need to login with your UQ username and password
to view the article.

If you are printing the lecture notes and they are in Powerpoint format rather than
PDF, select “Notes Pages” so that you get the notes at the bottom which are not in
the PowerPoint slides themselves.

2
 Topics for 5 x 50 minutes
Scientific Ethics Lectures
1. A. First Part of “Why is Ethics in Science
Important” ?
B. Fact/Value Distinction.
2. Ethics of Human and Animal
Experimentation.
3. Reasons for Ethical Failures in Science.
4. Ways of Failing Ethically in Science.
5. Writing the Ethics Review

Scientific ethics is a huge topic and in these five lectures we only have time to give
you a very broad and basic introduction to the topic. Whatever area of science you
eventually work in, there will be lots more for you to learn about the relevant ethical
standards – this is just the beginning.

3
 What is Analytic Philosophy?

• My preferred definition: Using reason to

investigate questions which are important but
which cannot be resolved by science.
• One of those important questions is “How should
we act?” – trying to sensibly and reasonably
answer these questions is part of the discipline
called Philosophical Ethics and the subset we
are interested in, is called Scientific Ethics

Science is unrivaled as a means to figure out how to bring about goals we value, but
as we will see is insufficient to tell us what goals we should value.

Ethics is about behavior which upholds or brings about goals we value, potentially
including public safety, honesty, accuracy, effectiveness, public welfare, human
knowledge and many other goals.

You may be thinking “Hang on, I think science can tell us what our goals should be”.
If so hold that thought until the second part of the lecture where we will talk about
the Fact/Value distinction.

4
 Two topics today

• The first part of understanding why ethics

is important in science (the second part of
this understanding is addressed in next
lecture)

• Fact/Value and Descriptive/Normative

Distinctions

5
Why is Ethics in Science Important?
1. Some science immediately raises ethical issues.
2. Understanding the ethical aspects of science is part of
what it is to be a professional scientist.
3. Because understanding the ethics involved in science is
a way of helping reduce the incidence of unethical
scientific behaviour.
4. Unethical science undermines belief in scientific claims,
which in turn causes harm in various ways.
5. Unethical science is often bad science.
6. You will encounter bad science and bad scientific
behavior in you career.

6
 1. Some science immediately
raises ethical issues.
A.Many types of biological science
immediately involve significant ethical
issues. Examples: xenotransplantation,
genetic manipulation and enhancement,
IVF, stem cell research, etc..
B.The pursuit of some science involves the
use of inherently risky products (e.g.
radioactive and biologically-active
materials)

1. You may personally feel that there is no ethical controversy over some of these issues, for
example, IVF. But that is normally because you think that there is a clear ethical answer with
respect to this issue, and you could be possibly right. However, a significant number of people in
the community have a different ethical belief so it is important to be able to engage in ethical
debate and discussion about these issues. This is especially true for those who are likely to work
in these areas of science.

2. Embryonic stem cell research is controversial because to create a line of embryonic stem cells it
is currently necessary to destroy a human embryo. Religious groups who believe that embryos
have the same moral status as adults believe this is murder (this is the same reason these groups
seek to ban abortion). Research is underway to find alternative sources of viable stem cell lines,
primarily in order to sidestep this controversy.

3. For example in 1979 in Sverdlovsk in the former USSR a technician removed a filter from the
exhaust pipes of a container which was used to air-dry anthrax spores for use in biological
weapons, and failed to note this in the laboratory log book. The next shift turned on the driers
unaware there was no filter, and the cloud of airborne anthrax spores that was released killed
around 105 people – the exact death toll is unknown as the incident was covered up, since the
USSR was signatory to treaties forbidding the production of biological weapons. (see Meselson,
M.J., J. Guillemin, M. Hugh-Jones, et al. (1994), "The Sverdlovsk Anthrax Outbreak of 1979" (pdf),
Science, 266, no. 5188:1202-8.)

4. The last person known to have died of smallpox in the world, ever, was a medical photographer
named Janet Parker who worked in the same building as laboratory in the University of
Birmingham Medical School that handled Variola Major, the deadliest strain of smallpox. It
turned out that the lab had twice been declared unfit to handle smallpox, that several of the staff
there had no special training in handling deadly pathogens and that the researcher in charge had
been lying to the WHO about the amount of work going on in the laboratory. Smallpox viruses
got into a service duct and were carried up by air currents into an office where Janet Parker was
working. She died of smallpox, her father died of a cardiac arrest while visiting her, and the
researcher in charge committed suicide. (1978).

7
 C.Some science has the possibility of
producing hazardous results which
have the potential to cause
significant harm (e.g. toxins,
environmentally damaging agents,
explosions, etc.)
D.Some science involves directly
harming living things, such as
laboratory animals and humans

Some people were concerned that the Large Hadron Collider in Europe, the world’s
most powerful particle accelerator, could create small black holes that would destroy
the world. Obviously if this was possible it would be an enormous ethical and
practical concern. However this is unlikely, simply because the LHC can only
accelerate particles to around 1013eV, and naturally occurring cosmic rays strike the
Earth regularly with energies of up to 1020eV. Since we are still here, it seems very
likely that the LHC isn’t capable of destroying the world. However, there is no doubt
that some science involves both the employment and/or the production of some
very hazardous materials. Whether the potential benefits of any research justifies
the risks associated with the research is an inherently ethical question.

8
 D. Some science has military applications and, if
successful, increases the potential for great harm
to the non-combatants (e.g. land mines, depleted
uranium ammunitions, scatter bombs, biological
and chemical warfare agents, nuclear weapons
etc. all pose serious threats to the civilian
population)
One of the responses of some scientists to the
ethical dimensions of science in the past (and
unfortunately sometimes still) – has been to
“argue” that the ethical considerations of the
science are no part of the occupation of being a
scientist.
"Wernher von Braun" - Tom Lehrer on YouTube

Tom Lehrer’s 1960s song is about one of the leading rocket scientists of the 20 th
Century, Wernher von Braun. He worked for the Nazis during World War 2
developing missiles that killed and maimed thousands of civilians. He was captured
by the allied forces, quickly pardoned of his war crimes and apparently worked quite
happily developing US intercontinental ballistic missiles and eventually on the US
space program (late in life he talked about the importance of ethics to science but
given his history it is difficult to determine the genuineness of his statements or
whether he was once again looking for an expedient position to adopt). The song
satirically captures the attitude of some scientists “it’s not my department” when it
comes to thinking about the ethical dimensions of science – fortunately, the
prevalence of this attitude has dramatically reduced over the last half century and
most scientists see an understanding of the ethical aspects of their science as part of
their job.

9
 2. Modern Response: Science as a Profession

• The dominant response now is to view science as a

profession. Like all other professionals, some
understanding of the ethics associated with one’s area
of expertise is part of what it is to be a professional in
that area. The notion that ethics has nothing to do with
a person being a professional scientist has, fortunately,
gone.
• While the ethics issues we will look at over are, of
course, broader than those which just arise in the
context of statistics, ethics in statistics is, nevertheless,
one of the most important areas for ethical conduct.
This is because statistics is one of the main ways that
scientists communicate with each other and the public.

The Science Faculty at the University of Queensland, in its review of the Science
degree, recommended that all students be introduced to ethical issues associated
with Science. This recommendation brought the training of scientists in line with the
training of other professions, all of which require an understanding of the ethics
associated with the practice of the profession. In order to achieve this, it was
recommended that ethics being included in Stat1201 which is the only course all
science students take, so that is why it is included in this particular course.

Science does not have all of the characteristics commonly ascribed to professions.
There is no professional organisation for scientists comparable to the professional
bodies that lawyers, doctors, dentists, physiotherapists, engineers, psychologists,
surveyors, etc. forth are members of, for example. Scientists have no legal monopoly
on doing science as other professions have monopolies on the services they provide.
However science is now normally described as a profession and it continually is
becoming more like a standard profession, including the emergence of profession-
specific codes of ethics which professional scientists observe.

10
 Some common characteristics of professions
1. Skill based on theoretical knowledge
2. Extensive period of education
3. Professional association
4. Testing of competence
5. Institutional training
6. Work autonomy
7. Code of professional conduct or ethics
8. Self-regulation
9. Exclusion, monopoly and legal recognition
10.Public service and altruism
11.Inaccessible body of knowledge
12.Indeterminacy of knowledge

Science as a profession (the ethical component)

7-10 are the professional features most closely tied to ethics.
1.Professions are normally expected to teach those training for the profession about
the ethical aspects of the profession. Professional bodies usually have codes of
conduct or ethics that they expect their professionals to understand and adhere to
and they commonly have disciplinary procedures for those who infringe the codes.
2.Professional associations normally argue vigorously that they should be self-
regulating and free from government interference. The success of this argument is
commonly tied to the success of the profession with respect to (1) above.
3.Professions do not view the pursuit of their occupation as involving simply the
pursuit of self-interest. They commonly see the pursuit of their profession as partly
the delivery of a valuable public service.

You may already be familiar to some extent with the codes of ethics of other
professions, such as legal ethics and medical ethics, thanks to fictional dramas about
hospitals and law firms. Scientists are also expected to behave ethically in their
professional lives, although so far no one has made a successful television series
about the ethical dilemmas faced by scientists.

11
 Ethics and Statistics
• While the ethics issues we will look at are, of
course, broader than those which just arise in the
context of statistics, ethics in statistics is,
nevertheless, a very important area for ethical
conduct in science.
• This is because using statistics is one of the main
ways that scientists communicate with each
other and the public.

12
 3. Another reason for studying ethics
in science is to try to reduce the
incidence of unethical scientific
behaviour.

We will be looking at various forms of unethical

scientific behaviour in detail in next two lectures to
help us raise our awareness of the reasons and ways
scientists can fail ethically.

It is difficult to say just how common unethical scientific behaviour is.

Electronic searches of publication databases seem to show that a small but

significant number of scientific papers are plagiarised outright (a study using the
Medline database found 0.04% of papers published appeared to be plagiarised) and
a much larger number are “self-plagiarised”, meaning that the researcher has
padded their resume by publishing the same paper in two different journals (the
same study found that 1.35% of papers published appeared to be self-plagiarised).

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7177/full/451397a.html

Most other forms of scientific misconduct cannot be detected this easily, and so we
have no reliable measure of how common or uncommon unethical behaviour is.

13
 4. Bad Science undermines belief in
science and harms people as a result
Unethical scientific conduct not only produces bad
scientific results, and undermines public support for
science, which, in turn, retards scientific progress. It also
undermines public benefit from science by undermining
belief in science.
Scientists often do not realize how prevalent anti-
science beliefs are in the wider society. Scientists who
engage in unethical behavior contribute to this cynicism
and disbelief in scientific claims. This contributes to
ignorance and disbelief which directly and indirectly
harms people.

Although religion over the centuries has been a significant source of anti-scientific
fervour it has not been the only source. For one viewpoint on new age sources see:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13918905.000-forum-when-the-lights-of-
reason-go-out--francis-slakeyponders-the-faces-of-fantasy-and-new-age-scientists-
.html

For numerous, often tragic, case studies of the harm caused by anti-scientific and
non-evidence-based practices, visit Whatstheharm.net. Anti-scientific thinking
causes significant social harm, as this site illustrates. The actions of unethical
scientists actions that bring science into disrepute are a serious concern.

http://whatstheharm.net/

14
 5. Unethical science is often bad
science. How can this be so?

• The short answer is that, by not respecting certain scientific

values, science doesn’t fulfill its purpose – to help people
understand the world (and potentially make it better).
• Longer answer next lecture -- we will look at the numerous
ways ethical conduct is also a practical way of helping science
achieve its goals.

15
 Descriptive/Normative and Fact/Value
Distinctions

• Science aims to be descriptive. It tries to say how

the world is and tries to identify facts.
• Ethics aims to be action guiding – it is
prescriptive (or normative). It tries to say how
the world should be and to identify values
• The prescriptive trait of ethical principles is there
to advise people and influence action.

“In philosophy, normative statements affirm how things should or ought to be, how
to value them, which things are good or bad, which actions are right or wrong.
Normative is usually contrasted with positive (i.e. descriptive, explanatory, or
constative) when describing types of theories, beliefs, or propositions. Positive
statements are falsifiable statements that attempt to describe reality.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative

16
 Facts/Value Blur

After primatologist Frans de Waal of Emory University-

Yerkes Primate Center published information about
multi-sexual behaviors in certain chimpanzees, he
was made aware of discussions on gay internet
discussion groups. One opinion was that such
findings were degrading to gays and lesbians
because they indicated that homosexual behavior
was “primitive.” An opposing view was that such
research favored gay and lesbian individuals because
it showed that the predispositions were “natural.”

de Waal pointed out, the research does not say either. It simply says that the
behaviours exist in some groups of primates which are close to humans in
evolutionary lineage. Neither “primitive” nor “natural” are scientific descriptors.
These are value judgments superimposed by social groups on what is otherwise
straightforward scientific empiricism.

17
 Blurring Words: “Natural”, “Normal”

Note that words such as “natural”, “normal”, and

“primitive” often blur the fact/value distinction.
People commonly do not realise these words blur
the distinction because they do not have the
distinction clearly in their minds.
Some religions/sects have tended to use “natural”
in ambiguous, blurring ways. Most commonly
this has had the form “X is unnatural, therefore
X is wrong” (though sometimes it is of the form
“X is natural, therefore X is right).

Many (most?) individuals also use them in limited situations (e.g. commenting on
the morality of intrusive life support systems, on genetic manipulation research,
etc.).

18
 Exercise: A definition of “natural”?
• The moral claims using unnatural (or natural) typically depend
for their hoped success on the listener/reader identifying
something as empirically “unnatural” with the implication (not
always stated) that if something is “unnatural” it is wrong (or if
it is “natural” it is good).
• The problem with this strategy is that there is no empirical
definition of “natural” which consistently yields that the
“unnatural” things/behaviours are morally wrong and the
“natural” things/behaviours are morally right.
• As an exercise try it yourself – try to come up with an empirical
definition of “natural” which divides the “unnatural” up as
morally wrong and the “natural” as morally right.
(alternatively, try the same exercise with “normal”)
An empirical definition of natural is one which does not have values
embedded in it, e.g. “found in the world separate from human beings” does
not normally have values embedded in it (but can have); “fulfilling God’s
purpose for the world” clearly has values embedded in it so is not an
empirical definition.

“A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be
empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that
are observable by the senses. Empirical data is data that is produced by experiment
or observation.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical

For one wide-ranging discussion of “natural” in scientific contexts see:

http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/natural-qa.html

19
 Lesson
• The idea of the exercise is that in finding that it is impossible to
give an empirical definition which would support claims of
“unnatural, therefore morally wrong” or “natural, therefore
morally right” we have reason not to use “natural” and
“unnatural” in arguments about the rightness or wrongness of
things/actions and to look to alternative arguments in
reasoning about these issues.
• Lesson: In making moral claims it is best to avoid words like
“natural” and “normal” because they tend to be ambiguous
and/or unclear and thus blur the fact/value distinction.
• Having said this, it is true that acts and values interact - but we
need to first identify which are the values and which are the
facts in particular debates and understand they are distinct
conceptual categories.

20
 Facts and Values constantly interact
• People, including scientists, often fail to
understand when they are switching from
employing empirical science to when they are
employing ethical principles.
• So, for instance, almost all “scientific”
recommendations (“we should cut greenhouse
emissions”; “you should do the experiment this
way”; “I recommend you do this...”, “You should
take this pill...”) have some evaluative component
to them which doesn’t come from empirical
science.
• Science, at its best, can help us discover facts. It
doesn’t decide what we should do. We need to
add evaluative components to the facts to help us
decide what to do.

Understanding and reflecting on these evaluative components help scientists better

contribute to society, better understand what they are doing, and ultimately do
better science.

21
 Suppressed Evaluative Components
• Many times the evaluative component in a scientific
“ought” or “should” recommendation is suppressed. This
is often because it is uncontroversial but it is good
exercise to consciously try to identify the factual and
evaluative components in such statements. Doing this
will help you understand that many scientists regularly
employ ethical and evaluative principles in their work. It is
worthwhile to understand what they are; why we employ
them; and how to set up systems so that more scientists
continue to employ them successfully and also how to
guard against the adverse effects of influences that can
undermine them.

The recommendation to have regular mammograms, like all “medical”

recommendations depend not only on medical evidence but on the insertion of
values. These values are often suppressed in the statement of the recommendation
when they should not be as people value “medical” risks and benefits in diverse
ways and what is best for them crucially depends on those values. Below are a few
articles on a recent controversy with respect to recommendations concerning
mammograms. Read the first two articles carefully and see if you can identify where
values crucially come in but are not made explicit. The same set of issues arose
recently with respect to prostate cancer screening with the opposite result in
Australia – a crucial change in the “medical” recommendation.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-18/professor-claims-breast-cancer-screening-
can-cause-harm/6143966
http://newsroom.breastscreen.org.au/breastscreen-victoria-statement-on-
overdiagnosis/
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n11/paul-taylor/breast-cancer-screening

22
 Some Extra Science and Ethics
References
• Ethics in Science
• Science and ethics Bernard E. Rollin., 2006
• Encyclopedia of science, technology, and ethics edited by Carl
Mitcham., 2005
• Encyclopedia of ethics in science and technology Nigel Barber., 2002
• Life science ethics Gary L. Comstock, editor., 2002
• Science and technology ethics edited by Raymond E. Spier., 2001
• The ethics of science : an introduction David B. Resnik., 1998
• Scientific integrity : text and cases in responsible conduct Francis L.
Macrina., 2005
• Research ethics : a reader edited by Deni Elliott and Judy E. Stern.,
1997

It is not necessary to read any of these extra references in this course – it is enough
to read the four articles on the Stat1201 website. The best thing you can do to help
yourself at this stage after doing the readings is to settle on your review article and
start writing some points down for your ethics review. Then you will have some ideas
to run by your tutor over the next 2 weeks and they can give you feedback. Take
advantage of this opportunity.

23
 Some General Ethics References
• Basic Ethics Texts: Louis Pojman, Ethics : Discovering Right and
Wrong (Wadsworth Publishing); James Rachels, The Elements
of Moral Philosophy (McGraw-Hill);
• Larry Hinman's Ethics Updates is a very good online resource
for students interested in ethics. http://ethics.acusd.edu/
• Dictionaries/Enccylopedias in increasing levels of Complexity:
• Dictionary of Philosophical Terms and Names
http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/index.htm
• Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/stanford/

24