Science is founded upon ethical principles
In the March 5 issue of The Ontarion, Sameer Chhabra made the statement, “I’m a firm believer that science should not be hindered by morality, ethics, or politics,” in the context of the UK’s legalization of three-parent babies. What Chhabra’s view regarding ethics and morality in science exposes is a naive understanding of the role of science and the very foundations that science is built upon. I think what Chhabra really meant by this statement is that he believes three-parent babies are not an ethical issue. However, if this is the case, then Chhabra must provide philosophical and scientific evidence in support of this position. Science is built upon a firm foundation of ethics such that to remove ethics entirely would undermine the scientific method completely.
In the past, we have observed the result of a removal of ethics from science. The obvious example is the Nazi experiments. Some of these experiments yielded fruitful and highly beneficial results and information, yet the methods used to attain these results were extremely unethical, to say the very least. It is even questionable whether it would be ethical to use the information from these experiments or not, let alone conduct the experiments in the first place.
Apparent in Hitler’s mind was the notion that the end justifies the means. His end was the unification of his people and the economic revitalization of the nation, a seemingly noble endeavour in itself. Yet his means for doing so were morally and ethically abhorrent, means which included scientific experimentation resulting in the torture and death of hundreds and thousands of innocent lives. If science were to operate by this principle, which it often has, untold misery and death can occur.
What is important to understand is that science is founded upon certain ethical principles and assumptions. I will highlight two of these principles. The first is ethics in research. Research codes and policies generally consist of principles like confidentiality, social responsibility, legality, animal care, and human subject protection, among many others. Such principles are put in place to safeguard both the safety and health of research participants, animal or human, as well as the broader public. The Office of Research at the University of Guelph exists in part to “[promote] and [support] ethical responsibility, integrity, regulatory compliance, and performance in all aspects of research.” So, advocating for the advance of science in the absence of ethics is an idea not met with accord in academia.
The second is knowledge and truth. The scientific method makes the a priori assumption that truth exists and that the external or natural world is knowable. As a side note, it is important to understand that these are not scientific truths, but philosophical truths. It is not possible to scientifically verify that truth, as a category, exists, or even that the external world exists and is knowable. In order for science to work at all it must grant these realities before proceeding.
Therefore, it would be highly unethical to fabricate, falsify, or misrepresent research data. Doing so may be a waste of grant money and public funds, or perhaps may lead to misinformation that can harm the public. Most importantly, doing so would undermine science itself. The goal of science is to discover true information about the physical, observable world. This is perhaps the most fundamental ethical principle that science is built upon, for, without it, science is not even possible.
Now, many become frustrated when scientific endeavours, such as genetic engineering or stem-cell research, are impeded by the moral considerations of others. Especially with issues regarding the sanctity of life, like stem-cell research or abortion, people’s opinions on the matter are often a result of their worldview. What is important in these situations is a strong and vibrant debate, both in the academic and public spheres, that take into consideration moral, ethical, scientific, and philosophical evidence.
It does no good to simply deny the role of ethics in science all together, as Chhabra has done. Rather, Chhabra’s denial of the role of ethics in science contradicts his position on the matter. He denies ethical considerations of genetic engineering, because he thinks there are no ethical issues regarding it, which is fine. However, this view is undoubtedly held for moral and ethical reasons. Presumably, Chhabra would think it unethical not to further research into genetic engineering, since he thinks it is a highly beneficial field of inquiry.
.