Science’s
Effect
on
Society
Case
Studies
1. Icebreaker
On
a
late
night
interview
television
show
you
notice
two
prominent
scientists
sitting
at
the
table
with
the
interviewer.
The
interviewer
begins
the
discussion
by
asking
the
following
question:
“What
do
you
think
is
the
extent
of
your
social
responsibility,
as
a
scientist?”
The
first
scientist,
Dr.
Greene,
known
for
his
work
on
the
biochemistry
explaining
how
neurons
form
into
large
functioning
networks
during
early
development,
answers
confidently,
“Beyond
the
responsibility
to
do
good
science,
which
is
a
social
good
in
itself,
everything
else
is
politics.
Scientists
have
a
responsibility,
especially
if
supported
by
public
money,
to
design
and
carry
out
their
experiments
in
an
ethical
manner.
But
when
it
comes
to
deciding
the
value
of
the
research
for
social
policy,
that
is
a
whole
other
matter.
Science
gives
us
objective
understanding.
Deciding
what
to
do
with
that
science
requires
a
discussion,
hopefully
a
democratic
discussion,
about
the
appropriate
ranking
of
needs
and
values…and
that
is
a
matter
for
democratic
debate,
not
science.”
The
second
scientist,
Dr.
Redde,
a
sociologist
who
studies
policy
and
institutional
change
in
government
science
advisory
boards,
is
not
so
impressed
by
Dr.
Greene’s
answer.
Dr.
Redde
answers
in
an
equally
confident
manner,
“While
I
agree
with
Dr.
Greene’s
view
that
scientists
have
an
obligation
to
conduct
science
in
an
ethical
manner,
I
think
the
responsibility
of
scientists
goes
beyond
just
doing
the
science.
We
can’t
ignore
the
impact
and
influence
that
science
has
on
social
institutions
and
even
the
daily
life
of
individuals.
The
mere
fact
that
we
spend
billions
of
dollars
of
federal
money
to
support
research
in
health,
engineering,
and
related
endeavors
shows
that
science
is
not
value
free.
The
practice
of
science,
itself,
is
infused
with
determining
needs
and
values
–
as
Dr.
Greene
puts
it.
Why
does
one
sort
of
research
program
get
funded
over
another?
The
responsibility
of
scientist
extends,
at
the
very
least,
to
the
consideration
of
how
that
science
will
impact
society.
Without
such
reflection,
science
and
scientists
are
simply
at
the
whim
of
whatever
authority
is
in
power.
Frankly,
Dr.
Greene’s
view
is
naïve.”
The
rest
of
the
interview
consisted
in
both
Dr.
Greene
and
Dr.
Redde
exchanging
heated
remarks
about
the
social
responsibility
of
scientists.
Yet,
they
both
provide
much
to
think
about.
Discussion
Questions
1. Which
do
you
agree
with
most,
Dr.
Greene
or
Dr.
Redde?
Why?
2. One
point
that
Dr.
Greene
returns
to
during
the
interview
is
that
“once
scientists
start
judging
which
finding
is
or
isn’t
politically
correct,
then
the
science
is
completely
undermined…
It
becomes
politicized
science,
and
that
is
no
good
for
anyone.”
Do
you
agree?
Is
science
in
the
service
of
political
ends
simply
bad
science?
3. Dr.
Redde
continues
to
point
to
the
impact
that
science
has
on
society
as
a
reason
for
scientists
to
think
about
their
own
responsibility
in
pursuing
this
or
that
line
of
research.
He
even
goes
so
far
as
to
say,
“There
might
be
some
research
that
shouldn’t
be
done
because
the
consequences
would
simply
be
too
great.”
Do
you
agree?
Are
the
ethical
limits
beyond
which
science
ought
not
to
trespass?
4. Does
the
fact
that
Dr.
Greene
and
Dr.
Redde
are
from
very
different
disciplines
–
one
from
a
natural
science
and
the
other
from
a
social
science
–
have
any
bearing
on
their
views
about
the
social
responsibility
of
scientists?
Should
it?
2.
Was
Asilomar
a
Good
Idea?
At
the
beginning
of
the
recombinant
DNA
revolution
in
biology
scientists
were
only
just
learning
how
to
manipulate
DNA
into
novel
combinations.
However,
the
potential
health
and
environmental
risks
were
unknown.
In
the
early
1970s
scientists
working
on
recombinant
DNA
called
for
a
moratorium
on
the
research
and
convened
a
conference
at
Asilomar
Conference
Center
in
Pacific
Grove,
California
in
February
1975.
As
Paul
Berg
a
geneticist
and
organizer
of
the
Asilomar
conference
tells
us,
“it
was
agreed
that
the
research
should
continue
but
under
stringent
guidelines.
The
conference
marked
the
beginning
of
an
exceptional
era
for
science
and
for
the
public
discussion
of
science
policy.”
Berg
expresses
a
very
optimistic
assessment
of
the
1975
Asilomar
Conference
because
it
showed
science
at
its
most
responsible
and
self‐governed.
But
not
all
scientists
agree
that
the
science
was
a
good
idea.
Many
(such
as
James
Watson)
argue
that
the
conference
was
a
waste
of
time.
It
set
back
recombinant
DNA
research
by
a
couple
of
years
and
drew
much
unwanted
attention
from
the
public
who
often
over
exaggerated
the
risks
used
those
exaggerations
for
political
ends.
Still
others
criticize
the
conference
for
not
going
far
enough.
The
conference
only
focused
on
biosafety
risks
and
did
said
nothing
about
the
larger
social
issues
involved
in
that
research.
Nevertheless,
the
1975
Asilomar
conference
is
often
held
up
as
a
model
for
how
scientists
can
act
responsibly,
responding
to
social
needs
and
maintaining
a
modicum
of
self‐regulation.
Discussion
Questions
1. Do
you
think
the
1975
Asilomar
conference
was
a
good
idea?
What
do
you
think
about
the
criticisms
mentioned?
2. What
role
should
scientists
take
in
informing
the
public
about
potential
risks
of
their
own
research?
How
should
scientists
manage
public
reactions?
3. Do
you
think
the
1975
Asilomar
conference
is
a
good
model
for
contemporary
scientists?
Do
you
think
an
Asilomar‐like
conference
can
be
convened
today
in
order
to
address
some
of
the
pressing
science
related
issues,
such
as
embryonic
stem
cell
research,
GM
crops,
development
of
biodefense
or
HIV/AIDS
vaccines,
and
so
on?
Why
or
why
not?
(Berg
doesn’t
think
it
is
possible;
why?)
3. Stem Cell Research
Tina
and
Zellora
are
both
graduate
students
in
the
laboratory
of
Dr.
Fredrick.
Currently
they
are
studying
stem
cells
from
non‐human
animals,
but
it
has
recently
been
proposed
by
Dr.
Fredrick
that
the
laboratory
should
start
working
on
human
embryonic
stem
cells.
Because
federal
funding
for
this
type
of
research
is
extremely
restrictive,
Dr.
Fredrick
is
considering
the
possibility
of
phasing
out
current
work
on
animal
stem
cells
so
that
he
can
secure
private
or
commercial
funding,
which
is
still
allowable
under
existing
laws.
He
proposes
this
to
Tina
and
Zellora,
giving
them
the
option
to
stay
with
his
lab
or
seek
another
laboratory
to
continue
their
work
toward
graduation.
Both
Tina
and
Zellora
are
relatively
early
in
their
graduate
work,
so
switching
to
another
lab
will
not
be
a
devastating
to
their
hopes
of
graduating.
In
a
discussion
with
other
lab‐mates
Tina
remarks
that
she
is
upset
because
she
thinks
embryonic
stem
cell
research
is
immoral,
because
“it
is
basically
killing
a
human
life.”
Zellora
disagrees
with
Tina,
arguing
that
“I
disagree.
It
is
not
taking
a
fully
formed
human
life.
Besides
the
research
is
important
and
potentially
has
huge
benefits
for
those
suffering
from
certain
diseases.”
Tina
replies,
“I
won’t
argue
with
you
about
the
value
of
embryonic
life,
but
you
should
consider
the
consequences.
If
society
deems
something
illegal,
we
should
respect
that
decision.
Also,
if
legislation
is
passed
that
prohibits
research
on
human
stem
cells
for
both
privately
and
federally
funded
projects,
you
will
be
out
of
a
luck…all
those
years
down
the
drain
for
nothing.”
After
some
thought,
Zellora
responds
to
Tina’s
argument,
“It
may
be
possible
that
laws
will
restrict
stem
cell
research,
but
I
think
those
laws
would
be
fundamentally
mistaken…especially
if
this
research
produces
tangible
benefits
for
curing
disease.
If
someone
can
just
show
the
actual
benefits,
then
society
will
change
its
mind.
Even
if
it
were
illegal,
I
think
this
is
important
enough
to
find
a
way
to
continue
the
research.”
Discussion
Questions
1. Which
of
the
two
graduate
students
do
you
most
agree
with,
Tina
or
Zellora?
2. Regardless
of
you
view
on
stem
cells,
do
you
think
Zellora’s
willingness
to
“find
a
way
to
continue
research”
even
if
society
deems
this
research
illegal
or
unethical
to
be
cavalier
or
profound?
3. How
would
you
respond
to
attempts
to
outlaw
the
type
of
research
you
are
currently
conducting?
4. The Lucifer Effect
The
world
was
outraged
when
it
witnessed
the
reports
from
Abu
Ghraib
prison
in
April
2004.
Published
images
depicted
naked
Iraqi
detainees
lead
around
on
leashes,
like
dogs.
Other
images
showed
pyramids
of
naked
prisoners,
or
hooded
individuals
attached
to
wires.
Overnight
the
Abu
Ghraib
incident
became
a
symbol
of
an
American
military
carrying
out
systematic
torture
and
abuse
on
helpless
prisoners.
Like
most
of
the
world,
Philip
Zimbardo
was
shocked
by
Abu
Ghraib.
But
Zimbardo
is
also
a
well‐known
psychologist
with
a
long
career
studying
why
people
behave
badly.
He
is
most
famous
for
his
involvement
in
the
1971
“Stanford
Prison
Experiments”
in
which
he
created
a
mock
prison
in
the
basement
of
Stanford’s
psychology
building,
randomly
assigning
volunteer
participants
to
play
the
role
of
a
prisoner
or
a
guard.
Almost
immediately,
the
‘guards’began
to
intimidate,
shout
at
and
physically
abuse
the
‘prisoners’.
The
‘guards’
were
so
inhumane
that
the
experiment
was
shut
down
early.
Yet,
Zimbardo
explains
it
is
precisely
this
type
of
scenario
that
can
explain
what
happened
at
Abu
Ghraib.
In
2007,
Zimbardo
published
a
book,
The
Lucifer
Effect,
in
which
he
argues,
as
he
has
for
his
entire
career,
that
there
are
no
such
things
as
bad
people,
just
people
put
in
bad
situations
that
cause
them
to
act
in
horrible
ways.
His
research
has
consistently
shown
that
social
and
environmental
conditions
enable
people
who
would
otherwise
be
law
abiding
and
moral
individuals
to
act
in
illegal
and
immoral
fashions
–
actions
that
the
individual
wouldn’t
think
they
were
capable
of.
Shortly
after
the
events
at
Abu
Ghraib,
Zombardo
was
interviewed
to
provide
expert
insight
into
the
prison
conditions
and
resulting
torture
and
inhumane
treatment
of
Iraqi
detainees
by
US
military
personnel
and
others.
At
the
time,
the
US
military
explained
that
the
events
were
the
result
of
a
few
“bad
apples”
and
that
appropriate
disciplinary
action
would
be
taken.
Zimbardo
doubted
that
was
the
correct
explanation.
Appealing
to
his
own
experiments
he
suggested,
on
national
television,
that
the
real
culprit
was
the
military
chain
of
command
that
allowed
certain
situations
to
obtain,
resulting
in
torture.
In
his
book,
The
Lucifer
Effect,
he
puts
the
military
top
commanders
on
mock
trial,
prosecuting
them
for
the
Abu
Ghraib
incident.
He
charges
them
for
authorizing
a
situation
with
all
the
psychological
prerequisites,
including
conditions
of
extreme
stress
and
lack
of
accountability,
that
effectively
changed
the
soldiers
into
torturers.
But
he
leaves
it
to
the
reader
to
decide
who
is
most
culpable.
However,
his
argument
didn’t
win
out
in
the
actual
trial,
at
which
Zimbardo
testified.
The
prosecutor
asserted
that
individuals
should
be
responsible
for
their
own
behavior
and
that
the
entire
military
shouldn’t
be
blamed
because
of
“a
few
aberrant
sociopaths.”
Discussion
Questions
1. Zimbardo’s
work
is
often
cited
as
an
example
of
how
social‐behavioral
research
can
benefit
society.
However,
his
findings
that
the
situation
and
not
the
individual
are
often
to
blame
for
bad
actions
doesn’t
sit
well
with
our
common
sense
notions
of
responsibility,
nor
with
our
legal
system.
How
should
scientists
respond
when
society
rejects
the
findings
of
well‐designed
and
convincing
research?
2. Some
say
that
Zimbardo
took
a
terrible
risk
in
speaking
out
against
the
military
during
a
time
of
war.
But
he
was
somewhat
shielded
by
the
fact
that
he
was
a
senior
and
well‐established
psychologist.
Should
speaking
out
on
socially
relevant
issues,
especially
hot‐button
issues,
be
the
preserve
of
senior
researchers?
Are
younger
researchers
ill‐advised
to
pursue
social
issues
for
fear
of
a
backlash
so
early
in
their
career?
3. Zimbardo
has
always
been
very
vocal
in
his
attempt
to
apply
rigorous
science
to
social
issues.
But
there
is
always
a
danger
that
one
might
confuse
his
zealous
attempts
as
partisan
political
activism.
What
risk
does
Zimbardo
take
in
exposing
his
research,
and
the
associated
field
of
psychology,
to
ridicule
when
that
science
tells
us
something
contrary
to
what
most
think.
4. Imagine
that
Zimbardo
did
much
the
same
thing
during
a
different
war,
such
as
World
War
II,
arguing
that
the
mistreatment
and
mass
killing
of
concentration
camp
prisoners
can
be
explained
in
much
the
same
way.
In
light
of
this
hypothetical
scenario,
how
would
you
evaluate
Zimbardo’s
attempts
to
apply
his
science
to
what
he
sees
as
an
important
social
issue?
Are
there
acts
so
horrible
for
which
there
can
be
no
rational
explanation,
and
any
attempt
to
explain
it
as
other
than
individual
responsibility
is
to
lessen
its
evil.
5. A Science Debate?
In
the
February
7,
2008
publication
of
Nature
two
articles
(an
editorial
and
an
opinion
piece)
discuss
the
online
proposal
by
the
National
Academies,
Nobel
laureates
and
various
journals
calling
for
election
campaigns
–
in
particular,
the
current
presidential
campaigns
–
to
feature
a
science
debate
(www.sciencedebate2008.com)
that
would
highlight
some
of
the
most
important
issues
in
the
election
that
have
a
significant
science
and
technology
component.
For
instance,
global
warming,
energy
policy,
and
even
budgeting
for
the
NSF
or
the
NIH.
The
online
petition
claims
science
and
technology
“may
be
the
most
important
social
issue
of
our
time.”
The
editorial
and
opinion
column
in
Nature
deride
this
idea
as
both
impractical
and
counterproductive
for
the
sciences.
It
impractical
because
neither
the
candidates
nor
the
likely
moderator
will
be
particularly
informed
about
the
science.
The
Nature
editorial
goes
on
to
describe
how
fantastical
it
sounds
that
Tim
Russert
or
some
other
journalist‐interrogator
would
as
questions
such
as
“What
balance
will
you
seek
in
federal
science
funding
between
major‐research‐programme
project
research
and
investigator‐
initiated
basic‐research
grants?”
Not
only
will
it
make
poor
television
viewing,
it
will
enter
into
science
policy
minutia
that
are
better
left
out
of
the
public
eye.
A
science
debate
would
not
just
be
about
science,
but
about
corollary
policy
issues
that
are
clearly
out
of
the
depth
of
most
scientists.
Moreover,
a
science
debate
would
be
counterproductive,
according
to
these
articles,
because
if
successful
it
will
raise
the
public
awareness
of
federal
science
programs.
“And
more
attention
doesn’t
always
translate
into
more
money,”
argues
David
Goldston.
Often
attention
at
the
national
level
results
in
reduced
funding
and
program
restrictions
not
considered
previously.
The
editorial
and
opinion
pieces
also
raise
questions
about
the
motivation
for
a
science
debate.
Is
a
national
debate
the
best
forum
for
discussing
past
abuses,
or
the
politicization
of
science?
“Science
and
technology
can
and
must
inform
political
debate,
but,”
the
editorial
cautions,
“[it]
will
rarely
be
at
its
centre.”
Discussion
Questions
1. What
role
does
and
should
science
play
in
presidential
campaigns
or
debates?
Do
you
think
a
“science
debate”
is
a
good
idea?
2. What
are
the
major
political
issues
that
involve
science
and
technology
at
their
very
essence?
Are
these
political
issues
that
can
be
answered
by
science
alone?
3. If
you
could
ask
any
presidential
candidate
a
question
about
science,
what
would
you
ask?
What
answer
would
you
expect?
4. If
you
were
invited
to
advise
as
an
expert
in
your
field
of
research
on
a
government
board
regarding
public
policy
(assume
that
it
is
relevant
to
public
policy),
what
is
your
responsibility
as
a
scientist?
Is
it
your
obligation
to
remove
your
own
political
convictions
(insofar
as
you
can)
from
your
advice
about
research
matters?
Or
should
you
take
this
as
an
opportunity
to
inject
your
political
views
into
the
process,
while
at
the
same
time
not
distorting
the
science?
Further
Reading
Cary,
John.
2008.
Making
Science
a
Presidential
Priority.
Business
Week,
February
8.
Editorial.
2008.
Best
Tests
for
Candidates.
Nature
7179,
February
7;
605.
Gopldston,
David.
2008.
A
Debatable
Proposition.
Nature
7179,
February
7;
621.