As society changes with the advancement in research and technology, scientists have to consider the moral aspects of their work since they can no longer argue that science is neutral. Although some might claim it is not the responsibility of scientists to consider the possible harmful use of their ideas while conducting their research, such arguments would be obsolete and flawed. Decades ago, it was the duty of policymakers, scholars, and the general public to deal with the effects of new knowledge while the scientists primarily conducted research (Resnik & Elliott, 2016). This viewpoint, however, contradicts the contemporary consensus which stresses scientists’ responsibility for the intended and unintended results. Therefore, in instances where severe harms seem likely, they should make an effort to avoid such outcomes. Failing to consider and anticipate unintended effects is clear negligence. Knowing and not taking any steps to prevent such effects is irresponsible. Therefore, scientists should carefully think of their intended actions, reflect on the possible effects of such actions and make the necessary adjustments to their decisions.
The potential use of research for harm should mean that such research should be carefully pursued, not tracked at all, or only selective details on the results are published. Certain details might prove to be quite harmful in the wrong hands. In such cases, it is not about the argument of whether the research was intended for legitimate purposes or not. Ensuring the total security of research or the knowledge of its details that could lead to its reproduction can be impossible. Therefore, the scientists have a responsibility to their workplace, the research to pursue, and the results to make public. Throughout the history of scientific research, there have been numerous scientists who have exhibited a strong commitment and responsibility to society with their work. Herbert Needleman, a pediatrician and child psychologist who conducted research on the effects of lead on the development of humans in the 1970s, is an example of such an individual (Birnbaum, 2017). He made the health effects of lead public and advocated for its ban as gasoline and paint ingredient.
In conclusion, the contemporary world has become so small and vulnerable. Scientists can no longer act as if they do not have the responsibility to consider the intended or unintended harm of their work. Since most scientists are considerably supported by the public, especially with regard to finances and facilities, they owe the public accountability. The public trusts the scientists to engage in ethical projects which potentially benefit society and may hold them responsible for their conduct. As such, the scientists must ensure their work is consistent with science’s obligation of doing no harm to other people and the environment. They should also make an effort of consulting other experts from different fields of study to aid in further exploring the implications of their research. This effort might not guarantee good results, but it will ensure they are doing their best.
References
Birnbaum, L., Suk, W., & Landrigan, P. (2017). In Memoriam: Herbert L. Needleman.Environmental Health Perspectives, 125(9), 091601. Web.
Resnik, D. B., & Elliott, K. C. (2016). The ethical challenges of socially responsible science.Accountability in Research, 23(1), 31-46. Web.