the socially embedded researcher: reasons and responsibilities jiin-yu chen research and scholarship...
TRANSCRIPT
The Socially Embedded Researcher: Reasons and
ResponsibilitiesJiin-Yu ChenResearch and Scholarship Integrity Program
Boston CollegeMarch 21, 2015
What is good research? Produces reliable and accurate
knowledge about natural phenomena and the material world
Generally conducted using accepted methods and standards of practice
Upholds the values critical to sustaining and furthering the practice of research, such as honesty, trustworthiness, accuracy, respect, discernment, and openness
Is this enough?
Why should researchers examine their works’ social contexts?
Researchers hold a privileged position in society, wielding power and authority. Their work is not isolated from society, but holds significant consequences for it.
The relationship of the inventor with the invention
The research community’s social contract
Stewardship of resources and knowledge
Products and knowledge made can be used for both beneficial and harmful purposes
Relationship between the inventor and the inventionWithout the active work of a scientist exploring
a particular physical property, it would not be known and therefore these actions create responsibilities that are ethically significant... Whoever makes the effort and succeeds in the discovery receives the kudos, but also must accept the responsibility for having done it: not the responsibility that carries blame for unanticipated consequences, but the responsibility to be there, to participate, to follow the path the discovery takes and to help society use it appropriately.
Reiser and Bulger, “The Social Responsibilities of Biological Scientists”
Physicists and the Atomic Bomb Development of the atomic bomb by
physicists as part of the effort to end WWII.
On August 6 and 9, 1945, the US dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, respectively. Roughly 200,000 died from injuries sustained.
Most physicists did not oppose the use of nuclear weapons until after they were dropped and the consequences tallied.
In coming to terms with the devastation wrought, the physics community began to reflect on how their work changed society. Many opposed the development of the “Super,” the hydrogen bomb.
J. Robert Oppenheimer, 1944
Atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, respectively
Social Contract and Stewardship
Researchers’ social contract– Society affords researchers a number of valuable resources
Funding
Autonomy
Authority
Monopoly of knowledge
For these benefits, researchers are responsible for using these resources wisely, in ways that benefit society and do not willfully harm it
Recombinant DNA and AsilomarResearchers are well-positioned to first identify morally questionable research and be heard by others.
Development of recombinant DNA
Enabled unprecedented study and manipulation of DNA, with many potential benefits
Raised fears about creating novel organisms whose properties and effects could not be predicted
Prominent researchers in the field sent a letter to Science, calling for a world-wide, voluntary moratorium on certain kinds of recombinant DNA research until guidelines and precautions could be formulated
Time cover,April 18, 1977
Credit: David Parkins, Nature, 18 Sept. 2008
Recombinant DNA and Asilomar
February 23-27, 1975: 155 attendees from research, government, policy, industry, media, and the public convened at Asilomar Conference Center in Pacific Grove, California to discuss how to navigate the risks posed by recombinant DNA, while maximizing the benefits
By the end of the conference, most attendees agreed with the final report that most recombinant DNA research could proceed with appropriate physical and biological safeguards Asilomar Conference Center, Pacific
Grove, CA
Unintended but potential harms from research– Dual Use Research
of Concern (DURC) The National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity defined DURC as “research that, based on current understanding, can be reasonably anticipated to provide knowledge, products, or technologies that could be directly misapplied by others to pose a threat to public health and safety, agricultural crops and other plants, animals, the environment, material or national security.”
Some research warrants particular scrutiny because those negative effects are foreseeable, potentially devastating, and a direct consequence of that research.
DURC– Research on influenza viruses
H5N1: Voluntary moratorium enacted for 2012 when virus reengineered to infect mammals (normally only affects birds)
Gain-of-function research: Since October 2014, federal funding paused for influenza, SARS, and MERS research that could enhance their virulence and transmissibility. Current projects encouraged to observe moratorium.
How should DURC be approached?
Frameworks
Precautionary principle
Weighing risks and benefits, intrinsic vs. instrumental value of knowledge
Concrete actions
Withholding key details in publications
Restricting access to certain materials
Federal departments to assess risks and benefits of research involving select agents and toxins and develop risk mitigation plan with researchers
Do these actions impinge on the values that research ordinarily strives toward?
What social responsibilities do researchers have? Use society’s investment wisely to produce
knowledge that is sound and beneficial.
Continually reflect upon the potential social implications of one’s research.
Realize when particular research avenues may directly result in considerable harms for society and take steps to curb or mitigate those harms.
Call attention to problematic areas
Work with other researchers, policy makers, and the public
Good research takes its social context into account when planning, implementing, and discussing its work.
References Osterholm, Michael T. and David A. Relman. “Creating a Mammalian-
Transmissible A/H5N1 Influenza Virus: Social Contracts, Prudence, and Alternative Perspectives.” Journal of Infectious Diseases 205, no. 11 (2011): 1636-1638.
Reiser, Stanley Joel and Ruth Ellen Bulger. “The Social Responsibilities of Biological Scientists.” Science and Engineering Ethics 3, no. 2 (1997): 137-143.
Resnik, David B. “H5N1 Avian Flu Research and the Ethics of Knowledge.” Hastings Center Report 43, no. 2 (March-April 2013): 22-33.
Schweber, S. S. In the Shadow of the Bomb: Oppenheimer, Bethe, and the Moral Responsibility of the Scientist. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 2000.
Shrader-Frechette, Kristin. Ethics of Scientific Research. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1994.
Swazey, Judith, James R. Sorenson, and Cynthia B. Wong. “Risks and Benefits, Rights and Responsibilities: A History of the Recombinant DNA Research Controversy.” Southern California Law Review 51 (1977-1978): 1019-1078.
Questions? Persons to contact at BCStephen Erickson
Research misconductConflict of interestImport-export controlsAnimal and human subjects [email protected]
Sharon Comvalius-GoodardSponsored [email protected]
Jiin-Yu ChenGeneral questions about research and scholarship [email protected]
Jason WenIntellectual [email protected] x21682