AAAS Committee Begins Discussion on Possible Oath for Scientists

A committee of European and American scientists met at AAAS last
week to discuss whether scientists should take a professional oath that
might reassure the public about the uses to which science would be put,
and make scientists more aware of the ethical implications of their work.

At a time when mad cow disease and dioxin scares have put scientists in
Europe on the defensive, AAAS’s Committee on Scientific Freedom and
Responsibility is responding to various proposals for an oath that are
being discussed among scientists around the world. The question of
whether there should be an oath for scientists and engineers will be
further debated in February 2001, during a session at the AAAS Annual
Meeting in San Francisco.

Noting that the public is increasingly aware of the power of science to
both create and destroy life, Committee Chair Irving Lerch proposed that
the group consider whether an oath is desirable or even necessary.
Lerch, director of international affairs for the American Physical Society,
asked, “Should an oath be enforced? Who would legislate it and who
would administer it?”

Peter D. Blair, executive director of Sigma Xi, the honor society for
scientists and engineers, argued that an oath could not be a substitute
“for an ongoing and vigorous debate on the issues” that concern
society. “In fact, an oath can be a convenient cop-out -- an invitation to
complacency,” Blair said. “If we agree on a pledge, it can be viewed only
as a point of departure...It may be necessary, but it is far from sufficient
for dealing with the issues we have to address.”

There were disagreements among the participants about whether an
oath would be effective, and some fears that it might serve to “shackle”
scientists in their pursuit of new knowledge. In considering the question
of working in the best interest of humanity, for example, how would
scientists view using tissue from human embryos in stem cell research
that promises relief from the effects of terrible neurological diseases?

The young scientists in the group, all members of Student Pugwash
USA -- an organization that promotes a pledge to consider the social
consequences of the work of scientists and engineers -- responded that
such an issue would be determined by the scientist’s own interpretation
of what constitutes socially responsible research. They argued also for
incorporating discussion of ethics into the undergraduate and graduate
curricula. Committee member Howard K. Schachman, who had lived
through efforts to exact loyalty oaths from American academics in the
1950s, said that the idea of an oath for scientists made him and many of
his colleagues uncomfortable.

European Perspective
The European participants noted that scientists should address the
European public’s distrust of their profession, but wondered whether
changes to educational systems and the development of ethical
guidelines for scientists might not be more effective than an oath.

Kathinka Evers, executive director of the Standing Committee on
Responsibility and Ethics in Science for the International Council for
Science, warned that Europeans would probably respond cynically to
scientists’ declaring their honesty and their intention to work in the best
interests of humanity.

Georges Kutukdjian, senior director of the Division of Ethics of Science
and Technology for UNESCO, argued that there is an urgent need to
develop a common statement for scientists, but in a way  that would be
the result of “a process of appropriation.”

“It is extremely important to bring on board the scientists in developing
countries and to bring them into the debate,” said Kutukdjian. “An oath
or guidelines can only have weight if scientists all over the world own
that text.”

To give context to the discussion, medical ethicist Edmund D. Pellegrino
spoke about the Hippocratic oath, which he called, “a profession or
public declaration of commitment,” one that brought physicians
together as members of the same community and, ideally, guided them in
the decisions they made.

Pellegrino, professor of medical ethics at the Center for Clinical Ethics,
Georgetown University Medical Center, said he tells young physicians
that “you enter the profession when you raise your hand and proclaim
that you are committing to a way of life other than self interest.”

Margot Iverson, a program assistant with the AAAS Program on
Scientific Freedom, Responsibility and Law, presented an analysis of 16
pledges for scientists and engineers, finding that most alluded to a
heightened sense of social responsibility and honesty and integrity as
important aspirations.

Half the oaths mentioned an intention to avoid bias in professional
endeavors, and many referred to a concern for protecting the
environment. In no case were there penalties for not adhering to the
oaths.

Question of Impact
Addressing the issue of whether scientists would adhere to an oath,
Neil Wollman, professor of psychology at Manchester College in
Indiana, said that his institution’s experience with administering a
pledge showed that “a lot of people followed through on it after they
graduated.”

“You can have a significant impact on society, if enough people start
asking questions about the environment and making changes in the
workplace,” said Wollman, who had administered an informal survey to
Manchester alumni on how they had been influenced by their promise
“to explore and take into account the social and environmental
consequences of any job I consider” and “to try and improve these
aspects of any organizations for which I work.”

According to Mark S. Frankel, director of AAAS’s Scientific Freedom,
Responsibility and Law Program, the debate has only just begun.

“We don’t know where this discussion will take us,” said Frankel. “But
AAAS has been asked to put the issue on the table, and that is what we
are doing.”

http://www.aaas.org/news/oath.html

**************