9 Society and Social Responsibility
9.1 Why is social responsibility an ethical concern?
Humans have been called “the world’s greatest evolutionary force” (Palumbi, 2001) as drivers of global change. We have altered species distributions, polluted most of the planet in one way or another, changed nutrient cycles, and have attempted (sometimes succeeded) to eradicate organisms that we deem in opposition to our own interests (Hendry et al., 2017). Many of these alterations came after scientific discoveries and technological advancements were made. These same discoveries and advancements have likewise helped shape human society and culture. Science has shaped how we live, communicate with one another, the jobs we hold, and the resources we can access. Knowledge is power, and at its core science is the pursuit of knowledge and understanding. But as the saying goes, “with great power comes great responsibility”. This leads us to the question: what role does science play in society and what responsibilities are imposed on scientists as a result?
In the past, the consensus on the role of science in society was that science is merely fact and scientists were only investigators with no responsibility beyond the research they conducted. As science has become more influential (for better or worse), this view has changed (Resnik & Elliott, 2016). Today, the ethical scientist is one who considers the potential consequences of science, both on society and the natural world. As individuals who have received advanced education and have specialized training and skillsets, scientists are ideally placed to bring expertise, knowledge, and perspective to assist with issues and problems within society (Bird, 2014). But how can scientists ethically uphold their responsibilities? It begins by being informed about scientific advancements and participating in discussions about the direction and use of science within society. These discussions should recognize and address the wide range of perspectives, values, problems and needs that impact all members of society. We can bring our expertise to the table to help promote the education of other citizens, enhancing their ability to make informed choices when considering societal issues (Bird, 2014).
Over the years, many scientists have upheld their social responsibilities, speaking out about their discoveries, often to the detriment of their own reputations. Notable scientists include Rachel Carson on the use of pesticides and their impact on the environment (Carson, 1962) and Herbert Needleman on the effects of lead toxicity (Needleman et al., 1979; Resnik & Elliott, 2016). It is vital that scientists share their knowledge publicly especially because while science can be a great boon to society allowing us to lead healthier, longer lives, it can also be harmful. One of the most important responsibilities scientists have is to fight against the misuse or abuse of research findings (Bird, 2014). This responsibility becomes increasingly challenging as concerns surrounding “dual-use” technology arises. Dual-use technology is any legitimate research that could be misused, thereby causing harm to others (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine et al., 2018; WHO Team, 2020). Vaccine development often requires dangerous viruses and other pathogens to be modified to better understand their function, but this leads to the concern that it could create a new bioweapon (Miller & Selgelid, 2007; WHO Team, 2020). Likewise, the development of CRISPR has opened many new avenues for gene therapy and other medical treatments but has also raised concerns that it could be misused to create neuroweapons or other harmful substances and viruses (DiEuliis & Giordano, 2017; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine et al., 2018). AI technology is also of concern for a variety of reasons regardless of its usefulness as a tool in everyday life (Jobin et al. 2019). But if these new technologies are misused, who is responsible for the outcome? Is it the research team doing legitimate science or is it those who used it outside of its original purpose?
Consider…
Do you believe that scientists are responsible for how their research is used or do you believe they are only responsible for their own research/experiment?
Another topic of debate is whether science should be exempt from current societal pressures that constrain new research. Some scientists avoid thinking about ethics because they feel that society doesn’t know what it wants. What was once ethical is suddenly unethical and what was once an unacceptable avenue of scientific inquiry is now accepted (Wolpe, 2006). But public opinion often shapes the policies surrounding topics, sometimes preventing or impeding research. An example of this is stem cell research. Stem cell research has benefited society in many ways including in bone marrow transplants, curing congenital defects, and regenerative therapy (Charitos et al., 2021). But when stem cell research first gained media attention in the US in 2001, 54% of surveyed Americans thought it was “morally wrong”. Many of these opinions stemmed from religious groups who opposed the use (and necessary destruction at the time) of embryos as they considered it murder (Nisbet, 2004). As of 2024, 63% of those surveyed felt it was morally acceptable (Gallup, 2024). Because of this significant change in public opinion, the way we experiment with and apply stem cell research has changed. With this controversial technology becoming more accepted, many scientists question what advancements we might have made in the last 20 years if we had not had to deal with the public’s wishy-washy opinions?
Consider…
Do you think that science should be separated from societal opinions and pressures?
A final ethical consideration when reconciling ethical scientific practice with societal responsibility is the establishment of trust with the public. Currently science has done a very poor job of maintaining a trusting relationship with the public (See Chapter 1 – Introduction). Their mistrust, particularly within certain communities (minorities, LGBTQ+, etc.) is not misplaced. It is frankly very valid based on past experiences (Freimuth et al., 2001; Scharff et al., 2010; MacDonald et al., 2014). But without their trust, the public is unlikely to take our advice, research, and new discoveries seriously. Reestablishing trust in science will take a lot of effort and time on the part of scientists, educators and policy makers. One way that scientists can assist in this is by being ethical scientists who conduct transparent, honest research in a mindful way. Using the ethical decision-making lens discussed in this book can assist us in this endeavour.
9.2 Example: Eugenics
While science can serve humanity, it can also be used to harm it, and it is the role of scientists to speak out about misused or flawed science. The eugenics movement of the early 1900s is one such example where scientists failed to uphold their social responsibility. Eugenics was born from the rediscovery of Mendel’s laws of Inheritance which show that traits are inherited based on parental genetic influence. Although, in 2024, many have the impression that this was a Nazi fringe movement, this is not the case (Stellard & Alfano, 2018). In the United States, it was used to inform policy on sterilization laws targeting those deemed unfit for a perfect society. These were vulnerable people such as those with disabilities, those who are ethnic and religious minorities, those living in poverty, and LGBTQ+ individuals (NHGRI, 2021). A scientist named Charles Davenport started “The American Breeder’s Association” in 1906. He used the organization to study his racist theories about inherited intelligence and selective human breeding. His work and that of others was used to pass mandatory sterilization laws across the United States. Indiana passed the first law in 1907 which the Nazis used as their model for their own social improvement efforts. More than 30 states would follow Indiana’s lead and pass their own sterilization laws. Furthermore, the US supreme court agreed to sterilize a “feeble-minded, promiscuous” woman setting an alarming precedent (Stellard & Alfano, 2018). More than 60,000 vulnerable people were sterilized against their will before the laws were abolished. Oregon was the last state to do so in 1983.
At the time, people were happy to believe that unsavory aspects of society, such as criminality and alcoholism, were the result of genetics rather than inequality, racism, sexism, and poverty. Eugenics was used to reinforce laws on racial mixing and interracial relationships and set quotas on “undesirable” immigrants (Micklos & Bloomington, 2000; NHGRI, 2021). They also used the argument that it is better to sterilize the unfit than to allow them to bring more unfit people into the world to become criminals or starve to death due to their own feeble-mindedness (NHGRI, 2021). When the Nazi’s began citing US policies on eugenics in the 1930s, the theory began to become unpopular (Micklos & Bloomington, 2000). At this point, some scientists began to speak out about the flawed science behind eugenics, but much damage had been done by then. One of the prominent geneticists of the time, Thomas Hunt Morgan, was a proponent of positive eugenics, where instead of removing unfavourable genetics from the gene pool, he wanted to increase the proportion of good genes. He privately criticized negative eugenics as early as 1915 but didn’t speak out publicly. In a letter he said “if they [the Eugenicists] want to do this sort of thing well and good, but I think it is just as well for some of us to set a better standard and not appear as participators in the show. I have no desire to make any fuss” (Beckwith, 2001). If scientists such as Morgan hadn’t publicly spoken about their opinions and the flaws in eugenics, the policies based on eugenics may never have gained traction. It could be argued that Morgan and other scientists like him were unethical as they failed to uphold their social responsibility, which had severe consequences for not only those living in the United States but elsewhere in the world, as other countries followed the United States’ lead.
9.3 Practice Questions
- Community involvement
You are running a study whereby you release transgenic (an organism whose genome has been altered by the introduction of foreign DNA from another species) largemouth bass into a lake as a method to control an outbreak of invasive carp. A similar lake (you assume that the carp density is the same based on a survey you did) will remain as is to act as a control. You did not contact or discuss the study with anyone outside the scientific community.
The study proceeds and the fish are released into the lake. When the community hears of this study, they express concerns that the bass will become an invasive species themselves. You are unconcerned and reply that the bass are infertile due to their transgenic nature and thus cannot become an invasive species. You also state that the lake has a narrow outlet that will prevent the bass from spreading to other lakes. A local community member informs you that there is in fact a separate outlet that was previously dammed by a beaver which is now open. The local states that they are now catching large volumes of bass in lakes downstream but are no longer finding endemic fish species indicating that the bass are eating them. Additionally, those who live on the lake where the bass were initially introduced are complaining that sport fishermen are now using the lake and operating motorboats.
2. Research selection and gene therapy
You have begun working in a gene therapy lab and are collaborating with other researchers as you select your next target gene for experimentation. Based on personal background, one of your colleagues strongly advocates for researching the gene responsible for Huntington’s Disease, a fatal genetic disorder which affects 1 in 10,000 people and for which there is currently no treatment. As you know that there is ongoing research into Huntington’s Disease, you suggest that Mucopolysaccharidoses (MPS) as a target disease. MPS is a category of diseases that collectively affect 1 in 25,000 which cause orthopedic abnormalities usually requiring surgery, bone marrow transplant or other invasive procedures.
3. Considering Dual-Use Technology and Responsibility
You are a part of a botany lab that studies the potential medical applications of plants, specifically rare and toxic plants. It has often been found that although a compound may be toxic, in small amounts it can be a very helpful treatment (e.g. the common heart medication digitalis (digoxin) originates from the Foxglove plant which can be deadly). The recently discovered plant you are working with is highly toxic and must be used with care. The lab wishes to aerosolize it for use in treating coughing fits in cystic fibrosis patients but there are concerns that it could be used as an airborne weapon.
