2017 Hawai`i Meeting
Symposium Abstracts
06 Social Responsibility of Scientists in the Technological Age
Ethics in a Decaying Universe, ARNOLD O. BENZ (Institute for Astronomy, ETH Zurich, 8093 Zurich,
Switzerland; [email protected]).
All objects in the universe came into being since the Big Bang. And all objects will decay after some time. This
holds for living creatures, planets, stars, galaxies, and even for matter. The universe is not in a steady state, but
evolves dynamically. In the course of the past ten thousand years, humanity is involved more and more in the
biological evolution on Earth. Today seventy species go extinct every day. But why worry if all life and Earth itself
will decay eventually? What does “Reverence for Life” (Albert Schweitzer) mean in a system that can ultimately not
be conserved? The status quo is no option.
Unpredictable new directions of growth have emerged in the universe in the past. I will explicate in my paper
how the future development is open and may include the formation of new structures and objects. Thus ethics in a
decaying universe must include the hope for new developments born out of the old.
The developments of the past request our reverence. They must not come to a halt where nothing new can arise
anymore. “Sustainable development expecting the new” means to nurture our own development without inhibiting
other forms of development currently taking place around us. This ethics displays solidarity with the development of
all creatures, including our own species. It includes the concern to passing on life and culture to our descendants. It
is the responsibility of us scientists to warn about technological developments that lead to a dead end without future
development.
Who Will Bell the Cat-Identifying Who is Responsible, RAGHAVAN JAYAKUMAR (Retired Physicist, Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, 10855, Elderwood Road, San Diego, CA 92131; [email protected]).
Genetic Engineering and Artificial Intelligence can not only be transformative technologies such as electric
power, fossil fuels, nuclear energy and the Internet, but also have an unprecedented potential to alter humans and
create competing genetic or cybernetic species, with dynamic, unpredictable and paradigm-shifting consequences.
Ernest Partridge points out that scientists and technologists have the knowledge and the capability to develop and
alter the course of technology. (As a consequence) Heather Douglas states that they bear “General” as well as
“Role” Scientific Responsibilities.
The social contract that the scientists have forged with the society requires that the balance between personal
and organizational interests on one hand and the interest of the society on the other, must shift towards the latter as
the intensity and scope of impact and uncertainties in technology increase. Arguably, at present, the scientists and
technologists are not very cognizant of and responsive to this demand. While funding agencies can be held liable for
the consequences of a technology, the long term and serious impacts can be understood and the associated risks
conveyed to the society only by scientists committed to a shared vision of the society. Technological determinism
would not be a concern if scientists adopt the motto “First do no harm” together with “Don’t do it if there are
significant uncertainties about consequences”. Members of each scientific enterprise must organize to be Concerned
and Responsible Scientists, while the funding agencies must make this a requirement with corresponding training,
similar to the quality and safety programs.
Scientific Responsibility Through a Human Rights Lens, THERESA L HARRIS (Scientific Responsibility, Human
Rights and Law Program, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 1200 New York Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20005; [email protected]).
For scientists and policymakers grappling with the positive and negative social implications of technological
advances, human rights principles can help illuminate some of the most difficult challenges: protecting individual
rights and responsibilities, upholding government obligations and the responsibilities of corporations, and ensuring
accountability. International human rights law also offers guidance on how to make policy decisions when
individual rights and broader societal interests conflict with each other. As scientific practice globalizes,
international human rights principles provide a set of values for developing a shared set of norms for responsible
research, data stewardship, science communication, and public policies regarding science and technology. To
illustrate how human rights assessments can lead to different outcomes than typical risk assessments, the author will
share examples involving geolocated data, personally identifiable data collected from personal mobile devices and
private websites, and trials for new vaccines. These examples also demonstrate how the growing awareness of the
right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications (Article 15 of the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) is influencing how the societal impacts these scientific and technological
advances are assessed.
A Neurobiological Argument for a Scientific Ethic, JESSE J. THOMAS (Department of Religious Studies, San
Diego State University, 36012 Corte Pavia, Murrieta CA 92562; [email protected] or [email protected]).
The core if not the details of a scientific ethic can be found within science itself within the human
neurobiological system. Recent risk assessment strategies of Paul Slovic of the University of Oregon are built from
what he calls the affect heuristic, a missing but essential element in research tools for risk assessment, where he has
made major contributions recently. He and his son Scott meanwhile have published Numbers and Nerves to
publicize his approach.
Slovic’s use of the neurobiologist Antonio Damasio’s work in the early 1990’s helped make his case, but much
has happened since then in neurobiology and embodied cognitive science that encourage even broader applications.
As Damasio says, the entire neurological system from the ground up “minds the future” which could well include
scientific ethics itself. Damasio, Walter Freeman, Andy Clark and others have provided means potentially to do
that. .
Billions of neurons interact with each other in laminated populations with intricate balancing acts, including
complex feed-forward, lateral, and feed-back processes, in processing the emotional origins of ethics long before
they reach the frontal lobes. The basic neurological goal is both individual and collective survival. Even single-cell
paramecia “know” that. Humans are therefore able to develop “supra-instinctive survival strategies” that could be
interpreted as the core of a scientific ethic long before sophisticated ethical systems, which can in turn elaborate and
develop them. This provides an ethic conducive to environmental and human survival.
Good Scientific Conduct in Post-Normal Science, TOM BØRSEN (Department of Development and Planning,
Aalborg University Copenhagen, A.C. Meyers Vænge 15, Copenhagen, DK 2450; [email protected]).
This paper investigates the relationship between ethics and different modes of science. Academic science,
applied science, professional consultancy, and post-normal science are all different scientific forms. What counts as
good scientific practice and scientific misconduct are specific to the type of research being undertaken. In academic
science, misconduct is defined as severe violations of Robert Merton’s ethos of academic science (CUDOS).
However, CUDOS does not account for science’s responsibilities towards society at large or the environment,
and only focus on good scientific practice in a narrow sense. This is not the case when we enter other modes of
knowledge production that is more entangled with society, its institutions and stakeholders.
The output of e.g. post-normal science (science done when facts are uncertain, stakes are high, values in
dispute, and decisions urgent) must comply with TRUST, the ethos of post-normal science. This type of science is
required to be transparent and not to hide political and financial interests, it should be robust and involve an
extended peer community, it must address uncertainties, focus on long-term consequences for society and the
environment, and not be one-dimensional.
In this paper I compare responsibilities of scientists working in respectively academic and post-normal settings, and
I discuss how university education can prepare for these responsibilities.
The Art of Birthing: From Bioethics to Politics with Assisted Reproductive Technologies, DEBORAH KALA
PERKINS (Graduate Theological Union, 25 Martinez Rd., SR 48,Woodside, CA 94062;
[email protected]).
Our new biotechnological capabilities have brought us to the frontier of the meaning and integrity of birth and
personhood. Questions of legal and biological parenthood, best interests of the birthing agents and dangers of
exploitation interface with the international dynamics of surrogacy, autonomy and responsibility. We are being
called upon to develop a new moral spectrum to protect the dignity and autonomy of life. Ethical and legal
challenges continuing to arise, with attempts to safeguard against commodification and exploitation of human
beings. Egg preservation through freezing presents diverse social, cultural and legal considerations. This
presentation explores several of these political, social and legal dilemmas with reference to specific cases with their
ethical and moral challenges.
Academic Responsibility, Writing for Public Impact, and the New World Order, SCOTT SLOVIC (Departnent of
English, University of Idaho, 875 Perimeter Drive, Moscow ID, 83844-1102; [email protected]).
The concept of the public intellectual is nothing new, but the motivation to reach out beyond our usual circles
and engage with issues of the day has never been more urgent than in 2017. It used to be that socially engaged
scientists and humanists were considered the activist fringe of their professions. Today, whether we’re bench
scientists or formalist readers of literary texts, if we’re not trying to get the word about our research out to general
audiences, we’re participating in the ongoing disenfranchisement of the public from the academic enterprise. In
North America and many other places in the world, we live in an , age of antagonism toward facts and expertise—
Tom Nichols explains this in The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why It
Matters (Oxford UP, 2016). This disdain for authoritative perspectives is, in a sense, the ironic outcome of
postmodern theory, which has inadventently fractured domineering “master narratives” into billions of ideologyconfirming micro-narratives—each of us now feels entitled to her or his private version of reality. “Truth” and
“facts” be damned. In the face of this reality, it seems incumbent upon scholars from every discipline to re-assert the
validity of carefully collected and vetted information, not with authoritarian aims but simply to enable vigorous,
open-eyed public discussion of serious issues. Toward this goal, I will offer both rationale and strategies for public
outreach.
That Which Is Right, and that Which We Do: How To Combat HARKing, P-Hacking, Data Hoarding and Other
Such Practices by Researchers? BINOD SUNDARARAJAN (Rowe School of Business, Faculty of Management,
Dalhousie University, 6100 University Avenue, P.O. Box 15000, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 4R2, Canada;
[email protected]).
More and more we hear reports about published journal articles being withdrawn because the authors of these
articles had bad evidence or bad analysis, or allegedly indulged in HARKing (Hypotheses After Results are Known),
P-Hacking (use datamining techniques to massage the data and get significance at p < 0.05), or preventing
replication and reproduction studies by hoarding data and not sharing with others in the discipline. From data
parasites who scoop data without giving credit, to others who copy part or even whole manuscripts, plagiarism is
another ill that is rife in academia, and it behooves scientists, journal editors, and institute ethics boards to be ever
more vigilant. While it is indeed a competitive environment for researchers in all scientific disciplines, “publish or
perish” is only a stick with no carrot. The promise of tenure and promotion, the ever-dangling Damocles Sword
above researchers’ heads, moves them to adopt nefarious practices, and forget that science is not just a noun, but
also a verb, a philosophy, an approach and a way of doing. While plagiarism software will keep authors somewhat
wary of intentional or inadvertent copying of ideas and words, datamining techniques need to be put to better use,
than just for P-Hacking. In this paper, we will look at the various practices that scientists of all ilk adopt to get by or
get ahead, and how this impacts technology use, and how society will begin questioning the veracity of scientific
findings, and be dismissive of real scientific breakthroughs.
Bridging the Gap Between Science and Political Decision Making, HUGO ESTRELLA (Pisa University, Lungarno
Antonio Pacinotti, 43, 56126 Pisa PI, Italy; [email protected]).
An outbreak of measles hits the heart of the US, actually Disneyland, two years ago. Europe, the world’s jewel
of the crown for literacy and individual liberties, is caught in the trap of the pseudo-progressive discourse of “rights
of the patient” on the one side, and anti-vaccine promoters on the other. Same goes for a huge spectrum of
pseudosciences, “alternative medicine” or untested therapies.
The press gives voice to patients who request the use of technologies that are under scrutiny, or not permitted
therapies, and judges, following the outcry, rule in favour of these patients.
Universities, running after profit and following the requests of a growing “market” for graduate studies in
pseudosciences, offer expensive Masters courses or “High level” training.
Scientists, struggling for budget, running after deadlines, and living outside the public sphere which determines
the budget priorities and the cuts in public investment in research and healthcare services, are unable to organize or
to effectively react to the prejudice and ignorance that have backlashed after 150 years.
This paper tries to understand where the gaps are, how the breach in public trust in science and technology got
to be so wide, the sociological and factual reflection on the communication deficit of scientists and practitioners, the
scientific ignorance of social scientists and the ideologization of scientific and technological policies, academic
prospects and intellectual fashion. Methods are suggested for socially responsible scientists to counter the
misinformation and remove the gap.
Civilizations Crisis – The Need for Social Responsibility, JOHN SCALES AVERY (Department of Chemistry,
University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 10, DK-2100 Copenhagen Denmark, home address: Snebærhaven 42,
DK-2620 Albertslund, Denmark; [email protected]).
The crisis of civilization which we face today includes three very serious threats: catastrophic climate change,
thermonuclear war, and large-scale famine. Since our present crisis is partly due to the astonishingly rapid growth of
modern science and technology, scientists have a special responsibility for finding ways to avert catastrophe and to
save the long-term future of human civilization and the biosphere. The education of scientists and engineers should
include a course on the history and social impact of science. This presentation describes such a course, which is now
required for all science and engineering students in Denmark. Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs
(Nobel Peace Prize, 1995) has also worked to make scientists and engineers more aware of their social
responsibility.