Elements of Ethics for Physical Scientists

Elements of Ethics for Physical Scientists

Sandra C. Greer

The MIT Press

Cambridge, Massachusetts

London, England

© 2017 Massachusetts Institute of Technology

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from the publisher.

This book was set in ITC Stone Sans Std and ITC Stone Serif Std by Toppan Best-set Premedia Limited. Printed and bound in the United States of America.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Greer, Sandra C., 1945-

Title: Elements of ethics for physical scientists / Sandra C. Greer.

Description: Cambridge, MA : The MIT Press, [2017] | Includes bibliographical

references and index.

Identifiers: LCCN 2017007622 | ISBN 9780262036887 (hardcover : alk. paper)

eISBN 9780262342810

Subjects: LCSH: Science--Moral and ethical aspects. |

Scientists--Professional ethics.

Classification: LCC Q175.35 .G75 2017 | DDC 174/.95--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017007622

ePub Version 1.0

d_r0

To my mother, Louise C. Thomason (1920–1998), who taught me that just because everybody is doing it does not make it right, and to my partner, Ruth E. Fassinger, who taught me that just because nobody is doing it does not make it wrong.

Table of Contents

Title page

Copyright page

Dedication

Preface

Acknowledgments

1 What Is Ethics?

2 What Is Science?

3 The Scientist and Truth: Dealing with Nature

4 The Scientist and Justice: Dealing with Other Scientists

5 The Scientist and Lives

6 The Scientist and Society

Conclusion: Final Advice on Doing Good Science

Appendix A: Guidelines for Laboratory Notebooks

Appendix B: Bibliography

Appendix C: Teaching Ethics

Appendix D: Bioethics

Index

List of Illustrations

Figure 2.1 The nature of science.

Figure 3.1 Deviation of the global mean surface temperature of the earth relative to the mean temperature in the years 1961–1990. The data include two data sets (HadCRUT3 and HadCRUT4). The bands indicate the 95 percent confidence intervals. Source: Colin P. Morice, John J. Kennedy, Nick A. Rayner, and Phil D. Jones, Quantifying Uncertainties in Global and Regional Temperature Change Using an Ensemble of Observational Estimates: The HadCRUT4 Dataset, Journal of Geophysical Research—Atmospheres 117, no. D8 (2012): D08101 (22 pages), figure 7. With permission of the Journal of Geophysical Research. © Crown Copyright, Met Office.

Figure 3.2 Chemist Linus Pauling (1901–1994) in 1954, with a model of the protein α-helix. Courtesy of the Special Collections and Archives Research Center at Oregon State University.

Figure 4.1 Research group of W. H. Bragg (1862–1942) (in center) in 1930. Photo by Serge Lachinov. This work is in the public domain.

Figure 5.1 The hands of chemist Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin (1910–1994), who had rheumatoid arthritis, drawn by sculptor Henry Moore. Crowfoot Hodgkin won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1964 for elucidating the structure of vitamin B12. Hands of Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin III 1978 lithograph (CGM 486). With permission of the Tate Museum, London. © The Henry Moore Foundation. All Rights Reserved, DACS (2016), http://www.henry-moore.org.

Figure 5.2 Marie (1758–1836) and Antoine Lavoisier (1743–1794), the Mother and Father of Chemistry. Painted by Jacques Louis David in 1788. Image © The Metropolitan Museum of Art, http://www.metmuseum.org. Image source: Art Resource, NY.

Figure 5.3 Agnes W. L. Pockels (1862–1935), researcher on the physics of liquid surfaces, in about 1922. This work is in the public domain in the United States.

Figure 5.4 Sylvester James Gates Jr. (1950–), Distinguished University Professor, University System of Maryland Regents Professor, and John S. Toll Professor of Physics at the University of Maryland, College Park. His work in supersymmetry and supergravity won him the National Medal of Science and membership in the National Academy of Sciences. By permission of S. J. Gates Jr.

Figure 5.5 Carolyn R. Bertozzi (1966–), biochemist, openly lesbian, and the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor at Stanford University. She is known for her work on the roles of sugars in cells. Photographer Armin Kȕbelbeck, CC-BY-SA, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/. Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carolyn_Bertozzi_IMG_9385.jpg.

Figure 5.6 The accumulation of disadvantage due to microinequities. If two scientists start at the same level at year 1 and one suffers a 1 percent, 2 percent, or 3 percent disadvantage every year, then that scientist will be at a disadvantage of 26 percent, 45 percent, or 60 percent after a 30-year career.

Figure 5.7 Physician Bernadine P. Healy (1944–2011), director of the NIH from 1991 to 1993. This work is in the public domain in the United States.

Figure 5.8 Peter Singer (1946–), moral philosopher, in 2009. Photo by Joel Travis Sage, courtesy of Creative Commons.

Figure 6.1 Excavating for the Superconducting Supercollider, about 1992. Courtesy of SSC, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory.

Figure 6.2 Federal and industrial support for research, 1953–2004, in billions of 2000 dollars. This work is in the public domain in the United States.

Figure 6.3 States eligible for EPSCoR grants. Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are also eligible. Adapted from the United States Department of Energy website, November 2016. This work is in the public domain in the United States.

Figure 6.4 Apparatus used for the discovery of nuclear fission. By permission of the Deutsches Museum, München, Archiv, BN24876.

Figure 6.5 Chemist Fritz Haber (1868–1934) in about 1905. Courtesy of Archiv der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Berlin-Dahlem.

Figure 6.6 Physicist Lise Meitner (1878–1968) in Berlin in about 1931. Courtesy of Archiv der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Berlin-Dahlem.

Figure 6.7 Physicists Werner Heisenberg (1901–1976), Max von Laue (1879–1960), and Otto Hahn (1879–1968) in 1946. Courtesy of Archiv der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Berlin-Dahlem.

Figure 6.8 A page from the 1957 laboratory notebook of Gordon Gould, describing his idea for the laser. The page is titled, Some rough calculations on the feasibility of a LASER: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation. Note the notarization in the left margin. With permission of the AIP Emilio Segrè Visual Archives, Hecht Collection.

Figure B.1 Astronomer Beatrice Hill Tinsley (1941–1981). Courtesy of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific.

Preface

After all, the argument concerns no ordinary topic, but the way we ought to live.

—Plato, Republic¹

Why do scientists need to learn about ethics? Scientists already have so much to learn: mathematics and physics, chemistry and biology and geology, computer technology and laboratory techniques, statistics. Then, within every subdiscipline, there is a vast literature to master. Why spend time on ethics?

We scientists teach and study ethics because we need to reflect on the way we ought to live in our professional lives. Some say that books such as this one are just advocating good science, that good science is learned in the course of one’s education, and, thus, that no more need be said: it is self-evident. Good science—scientific research that is accurate and reproducible—is certainly a part of what we want to address here. You can do reproducible science, but fail to give appropriate credit to your predecessors or your collaborators. You can produce important studies, but misreport your data to enhance the credibility of your work. You can do significant studies and at the same time do irreparable harm to human or animal subjects.

We want to understand how to analyze and present results in honest and unbiased ways. We want to give proper credit to those who contribute, and not give credit to those who do not contribute. Because we do science with the financial support of the society in which we live, we need to consider how our work can be justified within our society. We teach and study ethics because we want to be good scientists: scientists who work with intellectual and personal integrity, and with compassion and care for the human race and for this planet.

There has been much attention in recent years to deliberate fraud in science—to falsification of data, plagiarism, and other behaviors that most us would immediately recognize as unethical. While this book addresses these misbehaviors, the main considerations are the daily issues facing us as working scientists, the everyday decisions that challenge our integrity as we study our data and deal with our colleagues. The goals of this book are to raise awareness of the many ethical dimensions of our work and our professional relationships, and to teach ways of considering and addressing ethical dilemmas. This book provides no prescriptions for perfection and gives no all-encompassing solutions, but instead strives to nurture our ethical intelligence, experience, imagination, and commitment, so that we know an ethical issue when we see one and so that we know how to think about it.

Why have a book about learning about ethics in science? Why not just use an online learning module, some of which are already available? This book and others like it are meant to provide the material for courses in which the background reading is done out of class and the class time is used for in-depth discussions and case studies. The time spent in discussions with several minds in play together leads to a change in how people think about solving ethical problems: how they recognize an ethical issue and how they analyze and respond to an ethical issue. That change in thinking is less likely to happen for a person interacting alone with a computer learning module.² Moreover, in real situations, ethical deliberations usually involve interactions among people.

Why do we need another book on ethics in science? Elements of Ethics for Physical Scientists differs from other books in that it addresses topics that are not always included in existing books. Elements of Ethics introduces both philosophy of ethics and philosophy of science. Elements of Ethics includes the issues of underrepresented groups in science, the use of science for weapons, and the place of science in public policy.

Elements of Ethics is also different in that it is aimed mainly at physical scientists (chemists, physicists), whereas most previous books have been aimed at medical and biological scientists. Chemists, physicists, and engineers can relate better to the content of the book if they find a familiar vocabulary, known personalities, and accessible case studies and discussion questions. Elements of Ethics does not include bioethics, but appendix D refers the reader to resources on bioethics. Elements of Ethics does not address issues of ethics in engineering practice, but is still appropriate for the study of ethics in engineering research.

An important part of training in ethics is the vigorous discussion of the fine points of ethical issues. Elements of Ethics includes a set of questions and case studies at the end of each chapter. The questions are divided into those that can be considered immediately and without further information (termed discussion questions and case studies), and those that require the reader to seek further information by consulting references or by an Internet search (termed inquiry questions). In each chapter or section of a chapter, there is also one case study, a guided case study, for which detailed questions are provided that lead the reader through the analysis of the case using the steps outlined in chapter 1 for ethical decision making.

Readers surely will find topics about which they want to learn more and can be guided by the further reading lists and notes for each chapter. Appendix B gives a general bibliography of books, films, and websites that relate to ethics in science.

Notes

1. Plato, Republic, trans. C. D. C. Reeve (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2004).

2. Brian Schrag, Teaching Research Ethics: Can Web-Based Instruction Satisfy Appropriate Pedagogical Objectives?, Science and Engineering Ethics 11, no. 3 (2005): 347–366.

Acknowledgments

It is a pleasure to acknowledge the help of

Barbara Belmont on the history of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues in the American Chemical Society;

Martin Benjamin on philosophy of ethics and on animal rights;

Gwendolyn T. Bush on data analysis and for other helpful comments;

Philip DeShong for sharing information and for reading draft chapters;

Ruth E. Fassinger on human participants in research and for comments on the entire manuscript;

William L. Greer on weapons research;

Donald T. Jacobs for helpful comments;

Marc A. Joseph on the philosophy of ethics;

Margaret A. Palmer for conversations about feminist views of science;

Arthur N. Popper and Robert J. Dooling for conversations about teaching ethics;

The Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering at the University of Maryland College Park for supporting my teaching of a yearly course on ethics in science and engineering from 1995 to 2008; and

The Sonoma County Public Library, the University of Maryland College Park Libraries, and the F. W. Olin Library at Mills College for providing information resources.

Sandra C. Greer

Sonoma, California

1

What Is Ethics?

What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor: that is the entire Torah: the rest is commentary.

—Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 31a

Ethics is about what is right and what is wrong in human behavior. The terms ethics and morals often are used interchangeably,¹ although a common distinction is that ethics refers to professional behavior and morals refers to personal behavior.² For the purposes of this book, we will not distinguish between the two terms because we will encounter many intersections between professional and personal behavior.

"From the dawn of philosophy, the question concerning ... the foundation of morality [or ethical behavior] ... has been accounted the main problem in speculative thought, has occupied the most gifted intellects, and divided them into sects and schools. ... And after more than two thousand years the same discussions continue, ... and neither thinkers nor mankind at large seem nearer to being unanimous on the subject, than when the youth Socrates listened to the old Protagoras."³ Thus wrote John Stuart Mill in 1861, and matters remain the same to this day. It is worthwhile to try to understand the basic thinking of philosophers, theologians, and psychologists over these millennia, before turning to the question of right and wrong in the lives of scientists.

Essentials of the Philosophy of Ethics

There have been two main lines of thought in the philosophy of ethics.⁴ Theory 1 assumes that the correct behavior is that which leads to the most happiness for all. Theory 2 asserts that each person should behave in a way that can be generalized as a way for everyone to behave. Other theories have been proposed, but these two theories have been and remain the most influential.

Theory 1: We should act so as to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number.

This first approach, known as utilitarianism, was begun by David Hume (1711–1776) and later developed by Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806–1873).⁵ Such an ethical framework, focusing on results rather than on process, is known also as teleological or consequentialist. The utilitarians propose that ethical decisions can be made from a balance sheet of all the good results and all the bad results that would follow from various possible actions. Good results and bad results are determined by the increase or decrease of total happiness, not just the happiness of the person acting. The action that results in the greatest overall good is the preferred action. If good results exceed bad results, then the end justifies the means. If bad results exceed good results, then the end does not justify the means.

A well-known example is the Heinz dilemma.⁶ Assume that Heinz is a fellow who has a sick wife but has no money. Is it acceptable for Heinz to steal from the pharmacist the medicine that his wife needs in order to get well? How would the utilitarians advise Heinz? They would think about what behavior would result in the greatest good for the greatest number. In this case, Heinz and his wife would be very much happier if he stole the medicine and saved her life, while the pharmacist would be somewhat unhappy at the loss of his property. Utilitarians would claim that in this case, stealing achieves more happiness than unhappiness, that the end justifies the means, and thus that it is acceptable for Heinz to steal to get the medicine. Their philosophy would not motivate them to seek other solutions.

The problem with a utilitarian analysis is that the accounting of the total good and the total bad, short-term and long-term, that result from a particular decision can be very difficult to make. The original theorists thought of good as being pleasure and happiness, and bad as being pain and unhappiness. Pleasure and happiness come from physical, emotional, psychological, and intellectual satisfactions. Pain and unhappiness come as dissatisfactions from the same sources. But how does one tally completely all the sources of pleasure and all the sources of pain? There can be information that is lacking, and there can be unforeseen results. For Heinz’s example, what if the medicine is very rare and hard to get, and the pharmacist had ordered it for the use of another patient? Then Heinz’s theft would have an unanticipated bad effect for this other patient, an effect that was not included in the initial accounting of good versus bad. Moreover, a utilitarian balance sheet may allow very bad things to happen to some people (such as the other patient) so long as that is balanced by good things happening to other people.

Thus the theory that making ethical decisions by seeking an outcome of the greatest good for the greatest number is useful, but is not always practical, sufficient, or objective.

Theory 2: We should act only in ways that we would want everyone else to act.

The second approach is the famous categorical imperative of Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), who argued that there are universal rules that each person must follow, and that those rules are defined by their very universality.⁷ Each of us should act only in ways that we would be willing for everyone to act, and then these acceptable behaviors reveal the general rules for behavior and provide a rational approach to moral decisions. This point of view, based on principles and intentions (or rules or values) rather than on outcomes, is termed deontological. For Kant, the paramount rule or principle for behavior was that human beings should never be used solely as a means to an end. Kant’s view owed much to prior views of rule-based ethics, including the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule, and the Buddhist Eightfold Path.

How would Kant approach Heinz’s dilemma? Assume there are three universal rules in a Kantian system: (1) do not use people merely as a means; (2) do not lie; and (3) respect human life. Now, is it acceptable for Heinz to steal from the pharmacist the medicine that his wife needs in order to get well? The way the problem is posed, Heinz’s only option is to steal in order to save a life, but that would violate the first rule, since he would be using the pharmacist merely as a means to an end. A better solution would be to seek an entirely different process, one that would avoid breaking any rules. For example, Heinz could borrow the money, or he could work it out with the pharmacist. A Kantian would be motivated to seek solutions that violate no rules.

Thus an ethical theory based on some set of rules can lead to a broader analysis of ethical problems than does the single rule of the greatest good for the greatest number. Of course, any rule-based system has its own problems. The choice of the universal rules may not be universally agreed upon. A conflict between rules may be unresolvable without requiring that one rule be ranked higher than another, and then that ranking may not find universal agreement. There are no perfect ethical systems.

An exploration of the full range of ethical theories is beyond the scope of this chapter, but the questions at the end of the chapter will introduce more of these other ideas.

An Ethical Value System for Scientists

It will be useful in addressing ethical issues in science to have an ethical system based on such a set of universal rules. There are a number of ways to set up such a system, and the simple one that follows can encompass the range of issues that scientists confront.

The rules for this proposed ethical system will be a list of values, where values are attributes that have high importance. For example, if loyalty is a value, then loyalty is seen as being very important. Philosophers of ethics have debated the nature of values, whether they are objective (the same for all people) or subjective (different for different people); absolute (the same in all cultures and times) or relative (changing with cultures and time); knowledge-based (having some basis in an external reality) or opinion-based (existing in the minds of individuals).⁸ The general references at the end of the chapter can lead you to further reading and thinking about values.

This proposed ethical system for scientists aims for a simple set of values and begins with the setting of just two values: life and truth. Then the acceptance of these two values will be seen to imply that there are three other corollary values: the universe, knowledge, and justice. Many questions will remain about how to assign those values and how to implement decisions. For example, even if scientists can all agree to assign a high value to human life, disagreements will develop about what is human (embryonic stem cells?) and what is life (two-day embryos?). You are encouraged to think about this choice of a set of values, and perhaps to try to make your own revised value system.

1. We value human life.

Respect for human life can influence every aspect of science, from the questions we decide to investigate, to the plans we make for a research project, to the way we treat our colleagues, our predecessors, and others affected by our work. When we state that we value human life, we intend also to place value on individual human autonomy. Autonomy means that people have the freedom to optimize their own lives by making choices that suit their own individual talents, tastes, and circumstances.

2. We value truth.

Scientists seek to find the truth about the universe: what is consistent and verifiable. The idea of scientific truth will be considered at length in chapter 3. A value placed on truth implies that we must do science honestly, keeping to complete and accurate reports. Without truth and honesty, the enterprise of science could not proceed, and failures of truth and honesty hinder the progress of science.

Therefore life and truth form this basic value system for scientists. From these two values, three more values follow as corollaries:

3. We value the universe.

The universe in which we exist is essential to human life. It is logical that the universe itself be high on our list of values: without it, we are nothing. For scientists, this valuation supports the devotion of lives and resources to the study and understanding of the universe: it is the essential justification for science. Here value is assigned to the universe as a consequence of the value assigned to human life. We could certainly have started the other way around, with the universe as a primary value, and with life as a corollary.

4. We value knowledge.

The value placed on knowledge follows from the value placed on truth and the value placed on the universe. Scientific knowledge is the accumulation of truth about the universe. Because we value the universe, we value knowledge about the universe. Chapter 2 will analyze the nature of science, and chapter 3 will discuss how science gets done in ways that increase knowledge.

5. We value justice.

Justice derives from both life and truth. Justice in science requires respect for the lives of other people in science, and respect for the truth about their contributions. First, we want to be just to all those, past and present, who work with us in science; chapter 4 will explore the dimensions of justice within the community of scientists. Second, we