The Iron Ring

Hello world (or at least- ‘hello blogosphere’)- my name is Sarah and I’m a doctoral student in Bioengineering. I’m starting this blog because in addition to being an engineer, a scientist, and a researcher, I am a reader and a writer and I’m starting to feel as if I need a literary outlet from my day to day life in the basement (yes, I do research in a basement). I will be writing about science and about how we approach what we do but I’ll also be writing about how scientists interact with the public, how policies and ethics influence us, and every now and again I hope to throw in some straight-up science bits as well. Welcome.

This week, Cell is printing its first ever commentary on bioethics (http://www.cell.com/content/article/abstract?uid=PIIS0092867406006763), and in it, Paul Root Wolpe of the University of Pennsylvania (go Quakers) defines 8 main reasons that scientists avoid ethics.

1. I’m not trained in ethics

2. My scientific work has little to do with ethics

3. Ethics is arbitrary

4. Ethicists mostly say ‘no’ to new technologies

5. Others will make ethical decisions

6. The public does not know what it wants

7. Knowledge is intrinsically good

8. If I don’t do it, someone else will

I think traditionally scientists have imagined that they face ethics only in use of grant money and in reporting of data, and I would venture that most scientists consider themselves inherently ethical in both categories. But what Wolpe argues, (under ethical consideration #5) that scientists are responsible not only on a primary level for personal ethics in relations with colleagues and integrity, but also on secondary and tertiary levels; to their field and to science as a public enterprise, respectively.

Research that involves animal subjects is a good example of how scientists engage ethics in this way. On one level, they are responsible on a daily basis for carrying out ethical guidelines for use of animals and animal tissues and for adhering to University policies for animal use. In their specialized field, they are responsible for maintaining a code laid out by their combined authorities for ethical study. But where does the final piece fit?

How does an individual scientist exercise their responsibility to the social enterprise?

I want to throw out one more last line from Wolpe’s piece, a quote from Einstein; “Most people say that it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character.”