Swiss Student Pugwash
Swiss National Conference
March 30 - April 1, 2001, CERN, Geneva
'Challenges for Humanity in the XXI Century'
Ethics, Science and SocietyFacilitator: Arthur Petersen, Faculty of Philosophy, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Working group on "Ethics, Science and Society"
2nd Swiss National Conference "Challenges for Humanity in the XXI Century" (Geneva, 30 March-1 April 2001) organized by Swiss Student Pugwash
Participants
Martin Bommer (German, Imperial College, London, UK, Biochemistry)
Claire Le Diraison (French, Sorbonne-Pantheon, France & University of Cologne, Germany, Law)
Hans Fynbo (Danish, CERN, Switzerland, Nuclear Physics)
Betty Mesazou (Greek, Cambridge Medical School, UK, Medicine)
Doris Sergy (Swiss, University of Geneva, Switzerland, Philosophy, Sociology, Music)
Noel Suministrado (Filipino, Bossey Ecumenical Institute/ University of Geneva, Switzerland, Ecumenical Theology)
Vivian van Oosten (Dutch, University of Geneva, Switzerland, Molecular Plant Biology)
Leo Weissman (Israeli, CERN, Switzerland, Nuclear Physics)
Facilitator
Arthur Petersen (Dutch, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Philosophy)
Summary Report
The lack of public involvement of scientists in societal issues is a central concern for Pugwash. In the working group on "Ethics, Science and Society" at the 2nd Swiss National Conference this problem was extensively discussed. The discussions were centered on five main topics, brought up by the participants:
Narrow-mindedness of scientists. Question: How to break open the minds?
Responsibility of scientists. Question: What would it mean to be "responsible"?
Dominance of wrong economic ideology. Questions: Can the ideology the altered? Do we need a new ideology?
Lack of moral constitution regulating science-society interactions. Questions: How to formulate such a constitution? Should it include references to prospective ethical discussions and/or monitoring institutions?
Lack of public trust. Questions: In what respects is this a problem? What to do about it?
The working group chose the first topic to expand on, i.e. narrow-mindedness, because it inevitably included discussions about responsibility and public trust.
It was concluded that many scientists are trained to be narrow-minded in the sense that they are discouraged to take part in ethical discussions and accept social responsibility for their work.
The main mechanisms sustaining this situation are: early specialization (specialization is also a demand from society; currently there is a streamlining in early education); lack of sufficient overlap and interaction between the disciplines; on the world scale: the role of science in the larger whole, in different societies.
Several strategies were discussed that could break open the scientific minds:
- involving scientists in a two-way (!) communication with the public;- integrating indigenous and ‘alternative’ knowledge within science;- developing the scientists’ ethical consciousness.
The working group focused in some detail on the third stategy. Two proposals were evaluated: (i) obligatory (or sometimes optional) courses on ethics, science and society and
(ii) a Hippocratic oath for scientists.
The courses should not be traditional ethics courses. A considerable amount of time should be spent on general philosophy and social science, preferably together with science students from different disciplines. The real and large-scale problems science and society face today should be reflected in the subjects covered by the courses.
In our discussion about a Hippocratic oath for scientists we used the pledge published in 1995 by Student Pugwash USA (Spusa) as a reference:
"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 recognize that individual responsibility is the first step on the path to peace."
The Spusa pledge received wide support among the working group. However, since some members raised specific objections to the text, we embarked on an exercise to come up with alternative wordings on which we all could agree. The new text is not intended to replace the old one, which some working group members may even have found more appealing, but can be offered as an alternative in case someone is sympathetic to the idea of a pledge, but has problems with the specific Spusa 1995 formulation. The Geneva 2001 version of the Spusa pledge reads:
"I promise to work for a better world, where science and technology are used in socially responsible ways. Throughout my career I will consider the ethical implications of my work, and the potential harmful consequences. While the demands placed upon me may be great, I recognize that individual responsibility to humanity is the first step on the path to peace."
The working group on Ethics, Science and Society was aware that the problems of science and society cannot be solved by the introduction of a pledge. Important topics, such as new institutions and a moral constitution addressing the way society should deal with science and technology, were discussed as well. We recognized, however, that individuals can make a difference and that pledges can help them to shape their sense of responsibility
March 30 - April 1, 2001, CERN, Geneva
'Challenges for Humanity in the XXI Century'
Ethics, Science and SocietyFacilitator: Arthur Petersen, Faculty of Philosophy, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Working group on "Ethics, Science and Society"
2nd Swiss National Conference "Challenges for Humanity in the XXI Century" (Geneva, 30 March-1 April 2001) organized by Swiss Student Pugwash
Participants
Martin Bommer (German, Imperial College, London, UK, Biochemistry)
Claire Le Diraison (French, Sorbonne-Pantheon, France & University of Cologne, Germany, Law)
Hans Fynbo (Danish, CERN, Switzerland, Nuclear Physics)
Betty Mesazou (Greek, Cambridge Medical School, UK, Medicine)
Doris Sergy (Swiss, University of Geneva, Switzerland, Philosophy, Sociology, Music)
Noel Suministrado (Filipino, Bossey Ecumenical Institute/ University of Geneva, Switzerland, Ecumenical Theology)
Vivian van Oosten (Dutch, University of Geneva, Switzerland, Molecular Plant Biology)
Leo Weissman (Israeli, CERN, Switzerland, Nuclear Physics)
Facilitator
Arthur Petersen (Dutch, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Philosophy)
Summary Report
The lack of public involvement of scientists in societal issues is a central concern for Pugwash. In the working group on "Ethics, Science and Society" at the 2nd Swiss National Conference this problem was extensively discussed. The discussions were centered on five main topics, brought up by the participants:
Narrow-mindedness of scientists. Question: How to break open the minds?
Responsibility of scientists. Question: What would it mean to be "responsible"?
Dominance of wrong economic ideology. Questions: Can the ideology the altered? Do we need a new ideology?
Lack of moral constitution regulating science-society interactions. Questions: How to formulate such a constitution? Should it include references to prospective ethical discussions and/or monitoring institutions?
Lack of public trust. Questions: In what respects is this a problem? What to do about it?
The working group chose the first topic to expand on, i.e. narrow-mindedness, because it inevitably included discussions about responsibility and public trust.
It was concluded that many scientists are trained to be narrow-minded in the sense that they are discouraged to take part in ethical discussions and accept social responsibility for their work.
The main mechanisms sustaining this situation are: early specialization (specialization is also a demand from society; currently there is a streamlining in early education); lack of sufficient overlap and interaction between the disciplines; on the world scale: the role of science in the larger whole, in different societies.
Several strategies were discussed that could break open the scientific minds:
- involving scientists in a two-way (!) communication with the public;- integrating indigenous and ‘alternative’ knowledge within science;- developing the scientists’ ethical consciousness.
The working group focused in some detail on the third stategy. Two proposals were evaluated: (i) obligatory (or sometimes optional) courses on ethics, science and society and
(ii) a Hippocratic oath for scientists.
The courses should not be traditional ethics courses. A considerable amount of time should be spent on general philosophy and social science, preferably together with science students from different disciplines. The real and large-scale problems science and society face today should be reflected in the subjects covered by the courses.
In our discussion about a Hippocratic oath for scientists we used the pledge published in 1995 by Student Pugwash USA (Spusa) as a reference:
"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 recognize that individual responsibility is the first step on the path to peace."
The Spusa pledge received wide support among the working group. However, since some members raised specific objections to the text, we embarked on an exercise to come up with alternative wordings on which we all could agree. The new text is not intended to replace the old one, which some working group members may even have found more appealing, but can be offered as an alternative in case someone is sympathetic to the idea of a pledge, but has problems with the specific Spusa 1995 formulation. The Geneva 2001 version of the Spusa pledge reads:
"I promise to work for a better world, where science and technology are used in socially responsible ways. Throughout my career I will consider the ethical implications of my work, and the potential harmful consequences. While the demands placed upon me may be great, I recognize that individual responsibility to humanity is the first step on the path to peace."
The working group on Ethics, Science and Society was aware that the problems of science and society cannot be solved by the introduction of a pledge. Important topics, such as new institutions and a moral constitution addressing the way society should deal with science and technology, were discussed as well. We recognized, however, that individuals can make a difference and that pledges can help them to shape their sense of responsibility