Should all scientist be required to take a pledge of ethical behavior similar to the Hippocratic Oath required by the medical profession?
Nancy L. Jones, Ph.D, of Wake Forest University School of Medicine thinks so. What do you think?

Here is the reference and abstract to the prototype code she has proposed in Jan 30 2007 edition of Science and Engineering Ethics.

Jones, NL. A code of ethics for the life sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics. Jan 30, 2007. Published Online.

Abstract
The activities of the life sciences are essential to provide solutions for the future, for both individuals and society. Society has demanded growing accountability from the scientific community as implications of life science research rise in influence and there are concerns about the credibility, integrity and motives of science. While the scientific community has responded to concerns about its integrity in part by initiating training in research integrity and the responsible conduct of research, this approach is minimal. The scientific community justifies itself by appealing to the ethos of science, claiming academic freedom, self-direction, and self-regulation, but no comprehensive codification of this foundational ethos has been forthcoming. A review of the professional norms of science and a prototype code of ethics for the life sciences provide a framework to spur discussions within the scientific community to define scientific professionalism. A formalization of implicit principles can provide guidance for recognizing divergence from the norms, place these norms within a context that would enhance education of trainees, and provide a framework for discussing externally and internally applied pressures that are influencing the practice of science. The prototype code articulates the goal for life sciences research and the responsibilities associated with the freedom of exploration, the principles for the practice of science, and the virtues of the scientists themselves. The time is ripe for scientific communities to reinvigorate professionalism and define the basis of their social contract. Codifying the basis of the social contract between science and society will sustain public trust in the scientific enterprise.



Here is a formal press release by Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center:

Scientists Should Adopt Codes of Ethics, Scientist-Bioethicist Says
Release Date - February 1, 2007

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. The time is ripe for scientific organizations to adopt codes of ethics, according to a scientist and bioethicist from Wake Forest University School of Medicine in the current issue of Science and Engineering Ethics.

Medical practice and human subject research is influenced by the Hippocratic tradition, said Nancy L. Jones, Ph.D., but no similar code of ethics has been formalized for the life and biomedical sciences. Like the Hippocratic oath, a code of ethics for the life sciences can provide a continual standard to shape the ethical practice of science.

Jones, an adjunct associate professor at Wake Forest University School of Medicine, is an American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) science and technology policy fellow at the National Institutes of Health. She is a fellow at the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity and is a recent member of the Secretarys Advisory Committee on Human Research Protection of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

She said a code of ethics is necessary because of the rapid pace of scientific breakthroughs, such as Dolly the sheep, the human genome project, human embryonic stem cells, and gene transfer.

The stakes are higher than ever before in human history, writes Jones in the article. Enhanced concerns over bioterrorism have focused attention on the dual use of knowledge derived from biological research that can be used as easily for malicious purposes.

But Jones points to a more far reaching impact of scientific activities. Scientific prowess claims to not only predict our future, cure, or destroy people, and control evolution, but more portentously reframe what it means to be human.

In her article, Jones presents a prototype code of ethics designed to provide a framework to spur discussion within the scientific community about how to define scientific professionalism.

While some professional societies are tackling this issue, not all professional societies in the life sciences have codified their ethical principles, according to Jones. She said the effort must go beyond education programs and that professional societies must be leaders in defining professionalism and taking responsibilities to self-regulate.

The Office of Research Integrity, for example, works to bolster scientific integrity by educating scientists on research integrity and responsible conduct of research. Jones said that while concerns about ensuring that data are credible and objective are important, there are newer concerns, such as how areas are chosen for research, who decides the distribution of scarce science resources, the motives behind scientific inquiries and whether the scientific communities will take responsibility to police themselves.

A code of ethics should provide guidance for which knowledge should be sought, define the ethical means of acquiring knowledge, emphasize thoughtful examination of potential consequences, both good and bad, and help society prescribe responsible use of the knowledge, writes Jones.

Her prototype code compares the norms of life sciences to the Hippocratic tradition. In part, it reads, In granting the privilege of freedom of inquiry, society implicitly assumes that scientists act with integrity on behalf of the interests of all people. Scientists and the scientific community should accept the responsibility for the consequences of their work by guiding society in the developing of safeguards necessary to judiciously anticipate and minimize harm.

The code goes on to discuss such principles as objectivity, research freedom, respect for subjects, and virtues such as duty, integrity and altruism.

Jones said an ethics code should not be merely endless rules and regulations, but should set the aims, principles and virtues that inspire the best ethical practice and character of scientists.

Jones said that adopting a code of ethics is merely the beginning. Further work is essential to not only translate the codes of ethics into codes of conduct, but societies must design systems to enforce these codes, she writes.


Media Contacts: Karen Richardson, krchrdsn@wfubmc.edu; Shannon Koontz, shkoontz@wfubmc.edu; at 336-716-4587.

About Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center: Wake Forest Baptist is an academic health system comprised of North Carolina Baptist Hospital and Wake Forest University Health Sciences, which operates the universitys School of Medicine. The system comprises 1,298 acute care, psychiatric, rehabilitation and long-term care beds and is consistently ranked as one of Americas Best Hospitals by U.S. News & World Report.

I completely think it is appropriate for scientists to take a pledge of ethical behavior. Science can be a great tool, or a dangerous weapon - we need to make sure that we are all working with the best of intentions motivating our research.

Having all scientists take a pledge of ethics is a nice idea but I question whether this would really affect individual behavior. While most people I know have a personal code of ethics that guides their research those who do not would unlikely be swayed by reciting or even signing a code of ethics unless there were clear concrete consequences for violation. Unfortunately you can't force someone to be ethical.

Montgomi brings up a several good points concerning the question of adopting a scientific code of ethics. First of all, one scientists idea of what a code of ethics should entail may conflict (and often does) with another scientists code of ethics. One obvious example of this would be the case of embryonic stem cell research. While one group may ultimately understand the greater good of this research, another group passes legislation to criminalize this research. Which is the exact state of affairs we find the scientific community in today. Therefore, who decides what belongs in the code of ethics and how do we attempt to enforce violations of such a code?

I was just going to ask the question is Wake Forest a religious school and I see the article comes from the Baptist Medical School. I don't think you can ask for a code and separate religion from it. So there is a contradiction here.

The government of the United Kingdom (UK) has issued a leaflet setting out the Universal Ethical Code for Scientists.

The Code - called 'Rigour, Respect, Responsibility' - is a public statement on the values and responsibilities expected of all scientists within the UK across all disciplines.

The leaflet has been produced by the Science and Society Team at the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills.

What is the Universal Ethical Code
for Scientists?

The Universal Ethical Code for Scientists is a public
statement of the values and responsibilities of
scientists. By scientists we mean anyone whose
work uses scientific methods, including social,
natural, medical and veterinary sciences,
engineering and mathematics.

The code has three main aims:

to foster ethical research
to encourage active reflection among scientists
on the implications and impacts of their work
to support communication between scientists
and the public on complex and challenging issues.

Individuals and institutions are encouraged to adopt
and promote these guidelines. It is meant to capture
a small number of broad principles that are shared
across disciplinary and institutional boundaries.

For further information about the Code contact:

Science and Society Team
Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills
1, Victoria Street
London SW1H OET
Tel: 0207 215 6120
e-mail: scienceandsociety@dius.gsi.gov.uk


To download the Code leaflet - LINK HERE

Here is an interesting link detailing some of the US policies and concerns to general bioethics.

http://www.intelliwareint.com/CURRENT%20ISSUES.htm#ETHICS%20OF%20HUMAN%20CLONING

I believe it speaks to a public need for scientists to have a common code of ethics. On the other hand, its difficult to have one overarching code, since many ethical dilemmas are very specific to the type of problem.

Omai