Science and Ethics
Given that the field of ethics in antiquity was derived from religion and philosophy, which are both essentially quests for truth, it is no surprise that ethics has moved into the modern era’s quest for truth, or science. It should also be no surprise that, for better or worse, the practitioners of science has also tried to resist that very spread of ethics into their field much in the same way priests did centuries ago.
As I’ve have tried to expound in the past, our topics aren’t so much concerned with the ethical dilemmas of the principles of science (ex: whether we should allow human cloning) but rather the ethical issues involved with the practice of science and research. For example, our Genetics and Cultural Identity topic deals with how to or should we protect minorities from the potential harms of genetic diversity mapping, not should we map human diversity. Our Research Standards topic will deal with how to reconcile the various ethics review board systems in place to create a strong international review system, not should we conduct research. Therefore, this post will mostly deal with the problems that can be uncovered when scientists and society have differing priorities.
(Just a side note: I’ve begun to read many of your papers that were turned in before the 2/1 deadline, and I’ve noticed that some of you seem to have missed the point I just made. I won’t dock points, as the issues are tough, but do be sure to realign your research for the conference.)
One area of great ethical concern is misconduct in research. When a research team uncovers a potentially groundbreaking discovery, the motivations for publication and consequently fame and additional funding are great. Often times however, those motivations are too great, especially when researchers are convinced of their discovery despite anomalies in data, procedural errors, or a demand for more conclusive tests. In extraordinary cases, senior researchers have in the past coerced junior researchers to assist in coverups, and junior researchers in turn have neglected to inform authorities (whistleblowing) in hopes of advancement.
Researchers have also at times fabricated data in what is known as the “publish or perish” phenomenon. The scientific world moves at such a fast pace that the fear is that if you don’t publish, someone else will and steal your glory. In addition, conflicts of interest are common in science, especially now since corporations and industry often work closely with universities, blurring the line between the public and private sectors.
Research is just one area in science that can be clouded with ethical issues, and I’ve chosen to focus on research simply because our second topic is dominated by it. Use this post to start thinking about how the ethical methodologies I laid out in the previous post can be used to analyze ethical issues in science, and as always, if you have any questions, feel free to leave a comment or email any of us.
-Bryan
February 21st, 2008 at 9:26 pm
I believe that I may have been a little confused at what the primary focus was of this committee. Thank you very much for the clarification.
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:16 am
No problem. Its good that you guys are starting to get a better feel for these admittingly complex topics. They are hard, even for college students like me, but I would be selling you guys short if you came to BMUN only to get run-of-the-mill topics like human cloning or overpopulation
.
February 26th, 2008 at 9:54 am
The United Kingdom agrees with all of the problems associated with Science and Ethics. Not only do some pharmaceutical companies and scientists try to “cover up” anomalies in their research, they also administer clinical trials without registering or approving their findings. As a result, these practices have intropduced harm to many subjects who have participated in clinical trials.
The United Kingdom strongly supports the idea of placing requirements on those who participate in clinical trials. Setting a minimum age requirement, considering previous health history, and incorporating each individual’s unique medical condition should be important. Since the people of many developing nations are unaware of the health risks associated with unapproved clinical trials, setting requirements can save many lives. The United Kingdom will incorporate this idea into a resolution because it can benefit the world as a whole.
March 5th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
I too was confused by the topics at first but this post really cleared things up for me. I find the approach you have asked us to take on solving this issue much more interesting. As interesting as the “run-of-the-mill topics like cloning and overpopulation” are, a committee full of delegates can only discuss these issues for so long before every speech begins to sound like a direct playback of the last. I like the direction that you have asked us to take our research in, and in reading this research in this new approach I found myself in deep thought over these complex issues (…maybe you intended this to happen ).
As for the issue of accuracy in the information that is published, countless clinical tests and trials have been conducted in China. In fact, many foreign companies have come to China to use our skilled doctors, experts, and scientists for their research. The research conducted in China is thoroughly overseen by strict guidelines and regulatory organizations such as the:
- Chinese State Food and Drug Administration (SFDA),
- US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
- International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH)
One US company quotes, that this is done to, “to ensure that data collected from pre-clinical and clinical research are credible and acceptable for marketing approvals in China, the U.S., and any other countries.”