The Moral Responsibilities of Science in Society: A Qualitative Investigation of Scientists Attitude

1
The Moral Responsibilities of Science in Society
A Qualitative Investigation of Scientists
Attitudes

• Bruce Small - AgR
• Towards STS Networking in the Asia-Pacific Region
  Conference
• 1-2 Dec 08

2
Introduction

• Science and technology provide many morally good
  outcomes for humanity
• But, ST are also causal antecedents of looming
  global crises morally bad outcomes either
  accidentally, incidentally, or malevolently
  (Small Jollands, 2006)
• Promethean technology use depends on full range
  of human nature (Small Jollands, 2006)
• In an age of Promethean technologies, what are
  the moral responsibilities of science and
  scientists to society

3
Research Aim

• To investigate scientists attitudes and beliefs
  about their moral responsibilities to society
  with regard to scientific research and
  technological development

4
Method

• Unstructured interviews
• Research approved by UoW ethics committee
• Informed consent, signed by participants
• Face-to-face interviews
• 1-2 hours, conducted in participants work
  offices
• Both interviewee and interviewer free to raise or
  discuss any issue within topic
• Issues (or aspects of) discussed varied across
  interviews
• Interviews digitally recorded and transcribed
• Empirical ethics (Borry et al., 2007 van der
  Scheer and Widdershoven, 2004)

5
Interview Sampling Strategy

• Purposive (not random)
• Homogeneous group
• scientists with working focus on molecular
  biology (gene technologies)
• Maximal variation (n10)
• variety of specialist areas, both genders, age,
  range of attitudes to gene technologies
• Snowball (n12)

6
Participant - demographics

• 22 NZ scientists working in CRIs or universities
  
• 12 males, 10 females
• Age range 26-60, mean 44, SD 8.8yr
• Field of study mean 15.3yr, SD 8.6yr
• Disciplines (self-described)
• plant molecular biology, animal molecular
  biology, evolutionary molecular biology, soil
  science, entomology, ecology, economics, animal
  reproduction, microbiology, animal physiology
• Current employer mean 10.3yr, SD 9.1yr
• Education PhD 21, MSc 1

7
Researcher Positionality

• AgR employee 8yrs as a psychologist and
  bioethicist (participant observer)
• Previously conducted research into public and
  scientists attitudes to biotechnology
• Philosophical orientation to research
• Pragmatism (e.g., Morgan, 2007 Onwuegbuzie
  Leech, 2005)
• Physical world mostly Real
• Social world mostly Constructed
• Realism and social constructionism both contain
  elements of truth for both the physical and
  social worlds but alone each is inadequate
• Action research
• Points of research subjectivity
• Investigative topic
• Data collection
• Data analysis and synthesis
• Knowledge co-created by interviewees and
  researcher

8
Analysis

• Thematic analysis (Boyatzis, 1998 Braun and
  Clarke, 2006) interpretive process
• Identify and select relevant text extracts
• Develop codes to identify and describe patterns
• Collate codes to form higher level themes
• TA independent of ontological and epistemological
  perspective (Braun Clarke, 2006), consistent
  with pragmatic philosophical approach
• Inductive (data driven) analysis, manifest and
  latent themes

9
Results Thematic Map Main Themes and
Sub-themes
Scientific Social Responsibility
Engagement
Doing Good
Compliance
Informing society Becoming informed Democratisatio
n
Knowledge Technology Foresighting
Laws regs Scientific norms Business
norms Societal norms Personal Values
10
Thematic map Doing Good
Doing Good Through Science (right vs wrong,
benefit vs harm)
Knowledge
Technology
Foresighting

• Moral status
• Intrinsic value
• Value free
• Purpose
• Dangerous or forbidden

• Moral status
• -Intrinsic value
• -Purpose
• Dual use
• -Forbidden

A scientists social responsibility Case-by-case P
recautionary Informing society
11
Doing Good 1 A Moral Imperative

• The majority of participants believed
• Science has a responsibility to do public good
  (13)
• Science should be done for the good of the
  greater world population (2)
• Scientists have a responsibility to do public
  good. A lot of research is funded by the
  taxpayer (15)
• I have a desire to do some sort of good for the
  community (8)
• Why would you not want to do public good? 17)
• Scientists tend to be very ethical they are
  there because they are interested in humanity, in
  solving things and problems to make things
  better (6)

12
Doing Good 2 Distributive Justice

• However, issues were raised about the
  distributive justice of ST benefits ( harms)
• Increasing technological power is increasing the
  gap between rich and poor, between Western and
  Third worlds, creating future problems unlikely
  to be resolved by peaceful social upheaval (2)
• Lack of adequate distribution of wealth is one
  of the biggest social problems facing us in the
  21st Century (4)
• The benefits of research and technology need to
  be more evenly distributed throughout society
  (7)

13
Doing Good 3 No Moral Imperative

• In contrast, some considered that
• There is no ethical imperative to do good (9)
• It is not the scientists primary activity to
  convert knowledge into public good, it is still
  to seek knowledge (21)
• Scientists do not have any more of a
  responsibility than any other sector, bankers,
  shopkeepers, to do good. Society cant demand
  more responsibility of scientists than they do of
  anybody else. (11)
• However, on reflection she raised a contrary
  argument of science as a vocation with an
  obligation to be especially morally responsible
• Although ministers and police are supposed to be
  particularly ethical. Expectations of scientists
  are more like ministers and police than car
  salesman (11)

14
Doing Good 4 Not Doing Harm

• Most considered it an ethical imperative that
• Scientists should not cause harm (9)
• First, do no harm, not to do damage, not to make
  monsters (4)
• Harms to be avoided
• Need to be careful not to damage the environment
  or biodiversity (15)
• Not to have any negative impact on people (4)
• Important to limit animal suffering for the sake
  of research (12)
• Safe products and practices
• Safety of the products of science is an
  important ethical issue (3)
• To do things appropriately and safelywe have an
  ethical and social responsibility (14)

15
Doing Good 5 Benefit and Harm

• But, knowledge and technology may have dual uses
  and effects with both benefits and harms and
  beneficiaries and victims
• Almost any technology or field of science can
  have potential lethal applications if used as
  weapons (13)
• Is this knowledge worth the harm that it may
  cause e.g., animal suffering (12)
• Some technologies that produce benefits for
  society in one area have negative consequences
  for society in others e.g., the car provides
  transport freedom at the expense of pollution,
  fossil fuel depletion, and road injuries and
  deaths

16
Doing Good 6 Utilitarian Approach

• Therefore, while non-harm was considered a moral
  ideal to be strived for, weighing benefits
  against harms was frequently seen as a more
  realistic approach
• I take a utilitarian approach how do the
  possible benefits of the research weigh up
  against the possible harms (6)
• Scientists have an obligation to help evaluate
  and understand both the potential benefits and
  potential risks associated with their fundamental
  research and with technological development (7)
• The later quote links a utilitarian approach to
  Doing Good through science with the theme of
  Engagement with the public and the sub-theme of
  Foresighting

17
Doing Good 7 Scientists Responsibility for the
Use of Technologies

• A few participants claimed that science and
  scientists had a responsibility for the use of
  ST by society
• Should we have responsibility for the use of
  ST, and I guess the answer is yes do
  scientists take responsibility? Probably not
  (8)
• Scientists have a responsibility for the use to
  which their technological discoveries are put.
  If everybody blindly goes along not thinking
  about what they are actually doing and what it
  can be used for, then we have a problem.
  Researchers should definitely be thinking about
  the future (13)
• The latter quote links scientists responsibility
  for technology use with their responsibility of
  Foresighting

18
Doing Good 8 Limits of Responsibility for
technology use

• Some participants, claiming use of ST was
  unpredictable, questioned scientists
  responsibility for harm caused by use of their
  discoveries
• If as a researcher you are an optimist and
  always trying to do public good then you dont
  tend to think what could be the negative things
  that could happen. It is very difficult to think
  of all those things, nobodys got a Gods eye
  view (13)
• It is often unclear how new knowledge can be
  applied and what technologies might be
  developed. Scientists cannot be held responsible
  for unforeseen uses of the knowledge they
  develop (7)
• It is up to society to decide which uses are
  ethical and which ones unethical and to regulate
  in accordance with societys norms (7)

19
Thematic Map Compliance
Business norms
Compliance
Laws and Regs
Scientific norms
Societal norms
Personal values
Integrity Objectivity Publishing Peer
review Competence Basic/applied balance
Ethics Relativism Right to Challenge
Conscience Choice Different values Emotion/proximi
ty Barriers
Compulsory Positives Negatives
20
Thematic Map Engagement
Engagement
Becoming informed
Informing public
Democratisation
Small, B., Mallon, M. (2007). Science, society,
ethics and trust Scientists attitudes to
commercialisation and democratisation of science.
International Studies of Management and
Organisation (Special Issue Organizing Science),
37(1) 103-124.
21
The Need for Engagement

• Participants identified a social responsibility
  for scientist to Engage with the Public
• Being socially responsible in research means
  communicating with the public (4)
• Scientists need to listen to the public and
  engage in discussion with them over their work
  (2)
• The public should have a role in setting the
  scientific research agenda and the weight that is
  put on particular parts of the agenda (8)
• Scientists have a social obligation to make
  their work known to the public (11)
• It is important to take the time to have this
  communication. Its very valuable to know that you
  are going in the right direction. I think this
  communication between science and society is very
  important (21)

22
The Need for Engagement

• Deficit theory
• We need to make sure the public are more
  educated about science so they understand the
  debate the public just dont understand enough
  science to appreciate the issues (16)
• I think the biggest problem that weve got is to
  try and educate the public to a level that they
  can be confident with what we are doing (19)
• But
• In saying that, Im not even confident that my
  colleagues are doing the right thing. I actually
  dont blame the public for being sceptical, I
  really dont (19)
• Some scientists have this thing I find
  incredibly patronising and rude, where they stand
  up and say the public just needs to be better
  educated. And every time I hear that, I just
  cringe, because it is so arrogant (10)
• It is arrogant scientists who claim that the
  public is ignorant, that they are incapable of
  understanding science (11)

23
Ideal Qualities of Engagement

• Transparency, honesty/integrity, accuracy of
  information, sufficiency of information,
  foresighting implications
• Transparency is the main ethical responsibility.
  It is extremely important to be open rather than
  secretive. Transparency gives the public the
  opportunity to see what scientists are doing, it
  puts research up for public scrutiny. In this way
  a scientists ethical responsibilities will be
  moderated by the community (13)
• ...being honest and open with the public (3)
• to report scientific findings with honesty and
  integrity (4)
• to ensure that the science that you do , that
  the results, finding are actually reported as
  they are recorded in a way that enables people to
  interpret them so that you provide sufficient
  data for people to draw their own conclusions
  (1)
• A scientist should be honest and say we have had
  this finding, now it could be used for this, it
  could be used for that, this is unethical (11)

24
Engagement Helpful or Divisive?

• Helpful
• where the debate has been taken to the public.
  There was a lot of rubbish said on both sides,
  but in the end people came back to a more middle
  ground. So scientists you once heard saying there
  are no problems are now saying well there are
  these issues. On both sides a lot of people
  arent saying the extreme stuff anymore they are
  arguing about real issues (11)
• Divisive
• public debate, thats a them and us thing. That
  is, the debates have been disastrous in terms of
  polarising, because youre asked to come along to
  debate and it was quite definitely set up as
  them and us (20)
• Engagement needs to be fair
• ...it is right that scientific research should
  be open to public scrutiny, but it has to be a
  fair process (6)

25
Types of Engagement

• Engagement may be informal, unstructured,
  formal, structured, culturally (in)appropriate
• Methods of Engagement included conversation with
  non-science peers, public meetings, debates,
  dialogues, hui, ethical committees, Royal
  Commissions, professional groups, advocacy
  groups, café scientifique
• It is very important to have a method, and this
  is something that is not well developed I dont
  think we have a good way for interacting between
  science and society (21)

26
Engagement and the Media

• Public interest in science is created by the
  media (15)
• People are learning to use the press more to
  tell the public about what they are doing (22)
• I think they could be more of our friends than
  they are (19)
• The media dont tend to pick up on the good
  stories just the negative ones (10)
• They sensationalise the issues rather than
  presenting fair and balanced points of view
  (15)
• I know I have been misreported, its quite likely
  that other people are as well (19)

27
Barriers to Engagement

• Commercialisation of science
• There are institutional barriers, so like in
  Company X, you cant actually go out and talk to
  the press unless you get official approval (3)
• Peer pressure
• Our science general manager stood up and said we
  are going to be doing a lot of media releases on
  genetic engineering so please make sure that you
  sand up for what we are saying and that you tell
  everyone genetic engineering is good I think it
  would be very hard for a scientists to come out
  and say Im unsure in public. To do that you
  would feel like you are going against the science
  community (10)
• Career progress
• If I spent all the rest of my career making
  sure that people heard about my research findings
  and didnt pursue new knowledge, then I wouldnt
  get anywhere career wise (8)

28
Barriers to Engagement

• Lack of resources for engagement
• A barrier we have to being socially responsible,
  is the lack of valuing that time and allocating
  it to the process of engagement (21)
• Distain for science popularisers
• Why do scientists criticise people for writing
  for the public? Its the demeaning thing, it
  demeans science (14)
• Scientific jargon
• Scientific jargon can be a barrier to social
  responsibility it can be a screen for scientists
  to hide behind a barrier to honest
  communication (11)
• Not all scientists are suitable for engaging with
  the public
• It come down to personality, some people are
  good at it, some people are crap at it (17)

29
Engagement Informing the Public

• The public have a right to be informed about
  what science is doing (8)
• Scientists need to create a balance to the
  misinformation spread by groups such as the
  Greens, MADGE and GE Free NZ (15)
• Complex science makes it difficult
• Its a difficult process because the science
  thats being done is very technical and society
  is very large and multi-faceted (21)
• Its just the difficulty of explaining what you
  do, because the work we do is so specialised that
  most people dont really want to listen about it.
  Its just gobbledegook to them (3)

30
Engagement Informing the Public

• Foresighting technology impacts
• Scientists have a responsibility to keep the
  public informed as to the goals of research,
  products that might result, potential benefits
  and harms (4)
• Scientists dont disseminate knowledge and its
  implications for future environments or future
  wellbeing comprehensively enough (1)

31
Engagement Becoming Informed

• It is very important to listen to the public
  (2)
• becoming informed about what society finds
  acceptable (9)
• its appreciation of what society thinks about
  what we are doing. I believe we havent done that
  really well in the past in many cases (16)
• responsibility to match or at least be
  cognisant of the communitys ethical opinions and
  to give back to research within those boundaries
  (21)

32
Engagement Becoming Informed

• What scientists should do is engage in
  discussion with the public as much as possible
  about their researchespecially with people who
  might have a different angle so we can get a
  broader perspective on what we are working on
  (2)
• I take into account Maori views (3)
• I take the stance where I listengoing off and
  doing something and then forcing it on the
  general public isnt very responsible (5)
• I think science as a whole has a lot to learn
  from the GM debate about engaging the public
  well enough, early enough (16)