The Ethical Challenges of Socially Responsible Science (original) (raw)
Related papers
Social responsibility of science
Journal of Education Culture and Society, 2019
This article tackles the problem of social involvement by academics and researchers. The author defines social responsibility widely as the involvement of knowledge, academics and educational institutions in solving the problems of the local community. The concept predicts that this can come about not only by disseminating research results, but also by involvement in pro-social activity without loss of autonomy. The author shows that this can be a way of building trust in science, as well as being a tool in opposing the anti-science culture. It can also be a means of rebuilding the status of science in a world of information bubbles and fake news.
How to encourage researchers to critically reflect on the ethical and social dimensions of their work? That is the central research question of this thesis. It starts from the assumption that the neutrality view of the social responsibility of the researcher – the view that researchers have no business with the social and ethical dimensions of their work – has become untenable, at least as far as applied sciences such as nano- and biotechnology are concerned. Instead, this thesis adopts a broader view, arguing that the social responsibility of researchers includes a moral responsibility to critically reflect on the socio-ethical context of their work. While this normative viewpoint itself is not uncommon, the neutrality view remains a dominant frame of reference in daily research practice. The specific contribution this thesis aims to make to the ongoing debate is to ‘revalue value-free science’: by way of three case studies (the implementation of a code of conduct for scientific practice, interdisciplinary collaborations between social and natural scientists, and the development of ‘science and society’ education), it explores opportunities and constraints for realising a broadened conception of social responsibility in daily research practice.
Mapping Social Responsibility in Science
This article employs the Foucauldian notion of 'political rationality' to map discussions and ideals about the responsibility of science toward society. By constructing and analyzing an archive of 263 journal papers, four political rationalities were identified: the Demarcation rationality, which aims to exclude the social from the scientific production in order to make it objective and thereby responsible; the Reflexivity rationality, which sees it as science's responsibility to let itself be guided by problems in society in choice of research focus and methods; the Contribution rationality, which insists that responsible science should live up to public demands for innovation and democracy; and the Integration rationality, which advocates that science should be co-constructed with societal actors in order to be socially responsible. While each rationality is distinct, the article argues that all of them address the issue of a boundary (or integration) between science and society. Hence, it is not possible for scientists to avoid 'a relationship' with society. The political question is how this relationship is to be defined and regulated.
Challenges for Socially Responsible Science (The Bitter Aftertaste of Technical Sweetness)
This talk will discuss the basis for social responsibilities for scientists, what bounds social responsibility, and some of the inherent challenges for scientists addressing social responsibility, such as the difficulties of foreseeing the societal implications of scientific research and the allure of technical sweetness (that satisfying feeling when a solution snaps into place), which can blind scientists to everything beyond scientific success, as it did for the fictional Dr. Frankenstein.
Academic and social responsibility of scientists
‘Science Agenda – Framework for Action’, a document endorsed at the International Council for Science (ICSU) and UNESCO’s ’World Conference on Science’ in 1999, recommends that ‘the basic ethical principles and responsibilities of science’ be an integral part of the education and training of all scientists and engineers. However, within this document it is not clearly defined what exactly is to be understood by the phrase ‘the basic ethical principles and responsibilities of science’. The aim of this article is to characterise a possible meaning of this phrase, emphasising the academic and social responsibility of individual scientists and engineers. In doing so, a model is presented and used. The model suggests that the ethics of science concerns three interacting levels: a normative level where ethical principles of science are set up, discussed, and justified; an individual level where the ethical principles are translated into responsible actions of individual scientists and eng...
Scientific Freedom and Social Responsibility
Science, Freedom, and Democracy, 2021
Recent statements of the responsibilities of scientists have strengthened the responsibilities of scientists towards the societies in which they pursue their research. Scientists are now expected to do more than treat their experimental subjects ethically and communicate their results. They are also expected to benefit humanity. In a shift from the predominant views of the second half of the 20th century, social responsibility is now yoked to the freedom to pursue scientific research, rather than opposed to such freedom. First I will describe this change and some of its causes. Then I will address the fact that much of our institutional research oversight infrastructure was put in place with a now-outdated understanding of the societal responsibilities and freedoms of scientists. Finally, I will make some recommendations on how to shift the structures we have to be more in tune with the current conceptualization of scientific freedom and social responsibility.
The source and status of values for socially responsible science
2013
Philosophy of Science After Feminism is an important contribution to philosophy of science, in that it argues for the central relevance of advances from previous work in feminist philosophy of science and articulates a new vision for philosophy of science going in to the future. Kourany's vision of philosophy of science's future as ``socially engaged and socially responsible'' and addressing questions of the social responsibility of science itself has much to recommend it. I focus the book articulation of an ethical-epistemic ideal for science, the Ideal of Socially Responsible Science, compare it to recent work in the same vein by Heather Douglas, and argue for some advantages of Kourany's approach. I then ask some critical question about the view, particularly with respect to the source of values that are to be integrated into science and the status of values that are to be so integrated. I argue that Kourany is too sanguine about where the values that inquirers will use come from and that these values seem to be accorded too fixed a status in her account.
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SCIENTIST TO SOCIETY -- AN ETHICAL AND FUNCTIONAL DILEMMA
As our society grows ever more complex and technologically based, science is exerting growing influence on our lives. The amazing scientific discoveries of the last hundred years have been turned over to corporate managers, politicians, and government officials as representatives of society. Many of these had no understanding of the potential long-range consequences of their uses of the new technologies resulting from scientific discoveries. We are now having to confront some of the devastating consequences of societal misuses of science and technology. The subject of scientific responsibility has therefore become crucially important to the viability of our earthly life-support systems and the general public welfare. How should the scientist be involved in these issues? What is the responsibility of the scientist for the societal misuse of his scientific discoveries and the technological uses of those discoveries? A system is proposed whereby the scientific professional societies can help scientists assess potential consequences of scientific research and develop alternative responses for dealing with adverse effects. Scientists are called upon to speak out on matters within their expertise where they see dangerous activities being pursued as a policy by governments, corporations, and citizens.