Community hub
Recent from talks
Knowledge base stats:
Talk channels stats:
Members stats:
Hippocratic Oath for scientists
A Hippocratic Oath for scientists is an oath similar to the Hippocratic Oath for medical professionals, adapted for scientists. Multiple varieties of such an oath have been proposed. Joseph Rotblat has suggested that an oath would help make new scientists aware of their social and moral responsibilities; opponents, however, have pointed to the "very serious risks for the scientific community" posed by an oath, particularly the possibility that it might be used to shut down certain avenues of research, such as stem cells.
The idea of an oath has been proposed by various prominent members of the scientific community, including Karl Popper, Joseph Rotblat and John Sulston. Research by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) identified sixteen different oaths for scientists or engineers proposed during the 20th century, most after 1970.
Popper, Rotblat and Sulston were all primarily concerned with the ethical implications of scientific advances, in particular for Popper and Rotblat the development of the atomic bomb, and believed that scientist, like medics, should have an oath that compelled them to "first do no harm". Popper said: "Formerly the pure scientist or the pure scholar had only one responsibility beyond those which everybody has; that is, to search for the truth. … This happy situation belongs to the past." Rotblat similarly stated: "Scientists can no longer claim that their work has nothing to do with the welfare of the individual or with state policies." He also attacked the attitude that the only obligation of a scientist is to make their results known, the use made of these results being the public's business, saying: "This amoral attitude is in my opinion actually immoral, because it eschews personal responsibility for the likely consequences of one's actions." Sulston was more concerned with rising public distrust of scientists and conflicts of interest brought about by the exploitation of research for profit. The stated intention of his oath was "both to require qualified scientists to cause no harm and to be wholly truthful in their public pronouncements, and also to protect them from discrimination by employers who might prefer them to be economical with the truth."
The concept of an oath, rather than a more detailed code of conduct, has been opposed by Ray Spier, Professor of Science and Engineering Ethics at the University of Surrey, UK, who stated that "Oaths are not the way ahead". Other objections raised at a AAAS meeting on the topic in 2000 included that an oath would simply make scientists look good without changing behaviour, that an oath could be used to suppress research, that some scientists would refuse to swear any oath as a matter of principle, that an oath would be ineffective, that creation of knowledge is separate from how it is used, and that the scientific community could never agree on the content of an oath. The meeting concluded that: "There was a broadly shared consensus that a tolerant (but not patronizing) attitude should be taken towards those developing oaths, but that an oath posed very serious risks for the scientific community which could not be ignored." Nobel laureate Jean-Marie Lehn has said "The first aim of scientific research is to increase knowledge for understanding. Knowledge is then available to mankind for use, namely to progress as well as to help prevent disease and suffering. Any knowledge can be misused. I do not see the need for an oath".
Some of the propositions are outlined below.
In 1968, the philosopher Karl Popper gave a talk on "The Moral Responsibility of the Scientist" at the International Congress on Philosophy in Vienna, in which he suggested "an undertaking analogous to the Hippocratic oath". In his analysis he noted that the original oath had three sections: the apprentice's obligation to their teacher; the obligation to carry on the high tradition of their art, preserve its high standards, and pass these standards on to their own students; and the obligation to help the suffering and preserve their confidentiality. He also noted that it was an apprentice's oath, as distinct from a graduation oath. Based on this, he proposed a three-section oath for students, rearranged from the Hippocratic oath to give professional responsibility to further the growth of knowledge; the student, who owes respect to others engaged in science and loyalty to teachers; and the overriding loyalty owed to humanity as a whole.
The idea of a Hippocratic Oath for scientists was raised again by Joseph Rotblat in his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1995, who later expanded on the idea, endorsing the formulation of the Student Pugwash Group:
I promise to work for a better world, where science and technology are used in socially responsible ways. I will not use my education for any purpose intended to harm human beings or the environment. Throughout my career, I will consider the ethical implications of my work before I take action. While the demands placed upon me may be great, I sign this declaration because I recognize that individual responsibility is the first step on the path to peace.
Hub AI
Hippocratic Oath for scientists AI simulator
(@Hippocratic Oath for scientists_simulator)
Hippocratic Oath for scientists
A Hippocratic Oath for scientists is an oath similar to the Hippocratic Oath for medical professionals, adapted for scientists. Multiple varieties of such an oath have been proposed. Joseph Rotblat has suggested that an oath would help make new scientists aware of their social and moral responsibilities; opponents, however, have pointed to the "very serious risks for the scientific community" posed by an oath, particularly the possibility that it might be used to shut down certain avenues of research, such as stem cells.
The idea of an oath has been proposed by various prominent members of the scientific community, including Karl Popper, Joseph Rotblat and John Sulston. Research by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) identified sixteen different oaths for scientists or engineers proposed during the 20th century, most after 1970.
Popper, Rotblat and Sulston were all primarily concerned with the ethical implications of scientific advances, in particular for Popper and Rotblat the development of the atomic bomb, and believed that scientist, like medics, should have an oath that compelled them to "first do no harm". Popper said: "Formerly the pure scientist or the pure scholar had only one responsibility beyond those which everybody has; that is, to search for the truth. … This happy situation belongs to the past." Rotblat similarly stated: "Scientists can no longer claim that their work has nothing to do with the welfare of the individual or with state policies." He also attacked the attitude that the only obligation of a scientist is to make their results known, the use made of these results being the public's business, saying: "This amoral attitude is in my opinion actually immoral, because it eschews personal responsibility for the likely consequences of one's actions." Sulston was more concerned with rising public distrust of scientists and conflicts of interest brought about by the exploitation of research for profit. The stated intention of his oath was "both to require qualified scientists to cause no harm and to be wholly truthful in their public pronouncements, and also to protect them from discrimination by employers who might prefer them to be economical with the truth."
The concept of an oath, rather than a more detailed code of conduct, has been opposed by Ray Spier, Professor of Science and Engineering Ethics at the University of Surrey, UK, who stated that "Oaths are not the way ahead". Other objections raised at a AAAS meeting on the topic in 2000 included that an oath would simply make scientists look good without changing behaviour, that an oath could be used to suppress research, that some scientists would refuse to swear any oath as a matter of principle, that an oath would be ineffective, that creation of knowledge is separate from how it is used, and that the scientific community could never agree on the content of an oath. The meeting concluded that: "There was a broadly shared consensus that a tolerant (but not patronizing) attitude should be taken towards those developing oaths, but that an oath posed very serious risks for the scientific community which could not be ignored." Nobel laureate Jean-Marie Lehn has said "The first aim of scientific research is to increase knowledge for understanding. Knowledge is then available to mankind for use, namely to progress as well as to help prevent disease and suffering. Any knowledge can be misused. I do not see the need for an oath".
Some of the propositions are outlined below.
In 1968, the philosopher Karl Popper gave a talk on "The Moral Responsibility of the Scientist" at the International Congress on Philosophy in Vienna, in which he suggested "an undertaking analogous to the Hippocratic oath". In his analysis he noted that the original oath had three sections: the apprentice's obligation to their teacher; the obligation to carry on the high tradition of their art, preserve its high standards, and pass these standards on to their own students; and the obligation to help the suffering and preserve their confidentiality. He also noted that it was an apprentice's oath, as distinct from a graduation oath. Based on this, he proposed a three-section oath for students, rearranged from the Hippocratic oath to give professional responsibility to further the growth of knowledge; the student, who owes respect to others engaged in science and loyalty to teachers; and the overriding loyalty owed to humanity as a whole.
The idea of a Hippocratic Oath for scientists was raised again by Joseph Rotblat in his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1995, who later expanded on the idea, endorsing the formulation of the Student Pugwash Group:
I promise to work for a better world, where science and technology are used in socially responsible ways. I will not use my education for any purpose intended to harm human beings or the environment. Throughout my career, I will consider the ethical implications of my work before I take action. While the demands placed upon me may be great, I sign this declaration because I recognize that individual responsibility is the first step on the path to peace.