Hippocratic Oath For Scientists. Yay or Nay?

[Gusto-Pastel]

Diverging from a completely unrelated thread so it doesn't get hijacked, would an oath of morality for scientists, styled after doctors' Hippocratic Oath, be a good idea? Some examples of draft oaths include the Pugwash Pledge, and the oath compiled by Sir David King and adopted by the UK government. They generally tout the same values - honest practice, justified, lawful and responsible work, and judgement in the name of science rather than greed. Personally I'd like to see a clause in there that limits the ability of a scientific professional to cause intentional harm to another human being or net harm to the environment, though it does seem a little idealistic.

In any case, what do you think?

[Samantha Arrow]

I want a cookie so... Voted.

"I'm a doctor, not a scientist."

[Tha_Pig]

It would be counterproductive.

The concept of “doing harm” is too vague and wide to be defined. And since every scientific discovering can somehow used to cause harm, we would not have science at all under such rules.

Einstein once said he would not have written his theories if knew they would latter help the creation of atomic bombs. In the same way, if scientists would stop to think about the possible harmful consequences of their work, they would not work at all, because every scientific discovery can be dangerous in the wrong hands.

Practically every great invention from the last century started as a military application and eventually evolved into something useful for mankind in general.

Satellites, which gave us global communications and connect mankind around the world, were originally intended for nations to spy on others. The rockets that took us to the moon were mere adaptations of missiles designed to carry nuclear warheads across continents. The list could go on forever. Even this Internet we are using now was born as a weapon.

None of modern technology would exist without potentially dangerous inventions. Just imagine, from the very birth of civilization, if the anonymous caveman who discovered fire had refrained himself at the thought that people would some day be burnt alive… We would be stuck in the Stone Age forever.

[Nelle Kozera]

It would be counterproductive.

The concept of “doing harm” is too vague and wide to be defined. And since every scientific discovering can somehow used to cause harm, we would not have science at all under such rules.

Einstein once said he would not have written his theories if knew they would latter help the creation of atomic bombs. In the same way, if scientists would stop to think about the possible harmful consequences of their work, they would not work at all, because every scientific discovery can be dangerous in the wrong hands.

Practically every great invention from the last century started as a military application and eventually evolved into something useful for mankind in general.

Satellites, which gave us global communications and connect mankind around the world, were originally intended for nations to spy on others. The rockets that took us to the moon were mere adaptations of missiles designed to carry nuclear warheads across continents. The list could go on forever. Even this Internet we are using now was born as a weapon.

None of modern technology would exist without potentially dangerous inventions. Just imagine, from the very birth of civilization, if the anonymous caveman who discovered fire had refrained himself at the thought that people would some day be burnt alive… We would be stuck in the Stone Age forever.

I agree, But i voted for a waste of time in truth. Such is my view. All most anything can be used as a weapon in the right/wrong hands. And those scientists that are amoral and are going to cause harm anyway are not going to care much for such an oath. Then again, what is moral and completely vile changes from person to person, culture to culture, civilization to civilization. *Deletes ongoing ramblings.*

[Brome Teks]

I agree, But i voted for a waste of time in truth. Such is my view. All most anything can be used as a weapon in the right/wrong hands. And those scientists that are amoral and are going to cause harm anyway are not going to care much for such an oath. Then again, what is moral and completely vile changes from person to person, culture to culture, civilization to civilization. *Deletes ongoing ramblings.*

I too agree with this completely. Even if this did have a backing in law, the bureaucratic clusterfuck that would follow would grind civilization to a halt. Just imagine if every scientific or engineering invention was forced to undergo a panel and/or committee to scrutinize every possible outcome of every scientific development ever. Hell, I'd be out of a job, because someone might decide that small grains agricultural research might lead to increased strain on the Earth's resources and have population control problems. That, and as I pointed out in the other thread, someone determined enough would disregard such an oath and/or work around it.

Next, many subjects require years upon years upon years of study to understand fully. Remember how many people were pissing their pampers over the Large Hadron Collider because they thought it was going to end the world? Some people even committed suicide over it. All because the uneducated media picked up the Micro Black Hole buzzword and did what the media does and ran a huge scare story over it. And look at that, we're all still here. (Or are we?) Anyways, some impartial judge and/or jury would be completely and totally ill equipped to make such decisions here.

As the others have Said, everything is developed so that we can gain an upper hand to our competitors around the world. And of course, this means that many inventions are designed to have a negative effect on our competitors, even in a very roundabout way.

That, and there is the whole freedom of knowledge argument here too. Forcing this oath would be somewhat akin to making the thought police, because it'd be forcing people to not pursue knowledge that may have beneficial effects on humanity just because somewhere along the line it may possibly have a harmful effect.

Finally, You can't force every scientist on earth to focus on the World-Ending Issue of the Week (TM). You can't expect particle physicists to drop their Ph.D.s and year upon years of work to focus on global warming instead. You can't force engineers working on a sky-scraper for years to drop it all at the drop of a hat to work on a bridge across a river. You can't force every bacteriologist/virologist on Earth to drop extensive studies and whole books of work to focus on the latest swine flu scare.

The world just doesn't work like that.

[Seismic]

I want an FTL drive in 30 years! No oath!

[Samantha Arrow]

*roots for the other side so arguments start*

lol, just joking. Ohmaigosh, everyone is agreeing so far, something's wrong...

[Wolfgang of Borg]

(Um i could argue with Pavel's technology examples but that doesn't seem helpful since i mostly agree with him?)

As a PR move a hippocratic-style oath wouldn't do any harm, but prob not much good either since it wouldn't have any effect on the dishonest media or ignorant public.

Specific measures to gain public trust (e.g. compulsory public registration of drug trials to stop null / negative results being swept under the rug) would be better.

[Tha_Pig]

There is also the fact the scientific community is not a solid block with an unanimous opinion. Scientists don't agree in lots of different issues. So how do we define "harmful" when it comes to a controversial topic?

Lets say one scientist supports genetic modification of vegetables because he thinks it will help solve world hunger. But there is another equally reputable scientist who opposes genetic modifications because he fears it can cause unpredictable dangerous mutations on the long run.

They both have valid points... and each would accuse the other of braking the oath.

Who decides who is right and who is wrong? And what use would have the oath if there is no way to define who is adhering to it and who is not?

[Stargazer Bleu]

To me I'm not sure if it would be a great idea.
Kind of seems like a two edged sword, where some parts would be better, then also really hurt it.

A lot of things about science is about unknown things.
The more I think about it, the more I think it would do more harm than good.

[Gusto-Pastel]

Hm. I'm starting to see the flaw in my addition to the commonly proposed oath, more thanks to the arguments about it being counterproductive, contextually ambiguous and exceedingly difficult to enforce than those alluding to "SCIENCE = MILITARY HURRDURR" (I wonder how many people take that position purely on the basis of wanting to see their own WW3 scenario come to life). Because thinking about it, pretty much any cutting edge research is surrounded by controversy about its potential negative effects, and in the event of it being used as a weapon, the scientists are very rarely the ones behind the trigger, or even supporting those behind the trigger (see Einstein, Nobel). So it's hardly fair to punish them.

However, that does leave the part of the oath concerning honest practice. I don't think anyone can argue with asking scientists to at least use moral methods in their research and justify the use of methods that aren't, and be open about their methods and results.

[Brome Teks]

Again, morals are also very, very hard to nail down. The best possible example of this today? Stem cell research. It has all kinds of potential benefits, but there is an enormous controversy over how to get the stem cells in the first place.

And, as someone else pointed out, these morals will change with time.

[Tha_Pig]

However, that does leave the part of the oath concerning honest practice. I don't think anyone can argue with asking scientists to at least use moral methods in their research and justify the use of methods that aren't, and be open about their methods and results.

And how can "honest practice" be defined? Who determines which methods are ethical and which are not? Scientists themselves have different and often opposed opinions on what is morally acceptable.

The oath would make no sense, because a scientist can still do a monstrous experiment and say it is morally right according to his principles.

Right and wrong are very vague concepts in the scientific field. Just an example: Louis Pasteur's invented vaccines that saved millions of lives and revolutionized medicine. Recently it has been discovered that he used unethical methods and even falsified his results to get his research though.

How should he be judged? Should we condemn him as a fraud or forgive him in the name of his great service to mankind?

[Gusto-Pastel]

Maybe scientists are just more arrogant than doctors and refuse to be subject to a standard code of practice. Really, I think you're just being obtuse at this stage, unless I haven't made it quite clear that scientists should strive to 1. research in the name of science and not of money, 2. be open about all of their findings and methods, and 3. justify harm caused to living things in the course of (notice how I'm not saying as a result of) their work. But I still have to wonder, maybe I'm on the wrong university course.

[Brome Teks]

1. research in the name of science and not of money, 2. be open about all of their findings and methods,

May as well close down the patent office then, because demand/necessity is the mother of invention. Again, my current job in Crop sciences, is funded with the hope that we'll be able to one day market and sell new lines of wheat and oats.

Science for science's sake is all well and good, but if there are no potential applications, then it's not going to go anywhere. Sorry to say it, but the world just doesn't work that way.

[Gusto-Pastel]

Maybe I'm just tired and not wording things right. I mean of course stuff gets more funding when it has financial incentive, what I meant was for greed not to cloud a scientist's judgement, I don't really care anymore at this stage, because obviously science shouldn't be subject to any sort of rules, hurr.