Hippocratic Oath for scientists and engineers?

steddyeddy · 20-03-2015 4:42pm #1

I was at a conference recently when the topic of cloning came about. Someone mentioned that some scientists they had met in some less regulated countries would love to clone a human and do other less ethical experiments on them. This is all anecdotal of course but the very real possibility of bringing in a Hippocratic oath similar to the one clinicians take for scientists and maybe engineers was brought up.

This would be a voluntary oath (employers would and should discriminate against those who did and didn't take it in theory) that would contain idea such as "don't steal other scientists work ( a real problem) and minimising the negative effect your work will have on people's lives.

The last part is a big one. It means that no scientists would work on new explosives, no new weapons would be developed and things like the atomic bomb would be a thing of the past. Would this be a good idea? Personally I think it will be very tricky to implement but it's happening in one form of the other.

seamus · 20-03-2015 4:48pm

I'm not sure whether it would serve any purpose. Ultimately the medical oath too is voluntary.

At the end of the day, the kind of work that people would be willing to get involved with is determined by their own personal value set and not whether they took an oath.

The majority of people would happily take the oath as a box to tick on their CV and then accept an R&D job from Lockheed. You're expecting unethical people to voluntarily respect an oath that they recited. I think the two are mutually exclusive.

steddyeddy · 20-03-2015 4:55pm

Well the proposition would be to enforce consequences for lack of co-operation. I.E refusing to publish work in journals.

bnt · 20-03-2015 5:21pm

When it comes to engineers, Canada has something along the lines of a Hippocratic oath: the Ritual of the Calling of an Engineer, which is voluntary, after which you can wear an iron ring as a symbol. The USA borrowed the idea for the Order of the Engineer.

As for the idea of getting scientists to stop all work on weapons ... as long as there are threats, scientists will be working on weapons.

20-03-2015 5:25pm

Eddy, I've moved this thread to Popular Sciences for you, it seems like something that will get more intelligent answers in the correct forum

DamoKen · 20-03-2015 5:34pm

bnt wrote: »

As for the idea of getting scientists to stop all work on weapons ... as long as there are threats, scientists will be working on weapons.

Think it would be more accurate to say as long as there are lucrative financial rewards scientists will be working on weapons.

Of course this isn't possible without countries with defence budgets, which will happen as long as there are what those countries perceive as threats.

In the context of the thread though think it would be safe to say a large percentage of the people developing weapons are not doing it out of a sense of patriotism.

seamus · 20-03-2015 5:41pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well the proposition would be to enforce consequences for lack of co-operation. I.E refusing to publish work in journals.

Would that in itself not be anathema to most serious scientists and engineers - the idea that you would refuse to acknowledge scientific data because you don't like the people who researched it? Should all data not be treated equally and presented without bias?

I guess it's similar to the debate over what to do with the data from Nazi experiments. And that many people believe it should be squashed or destroyed. But I disagree completely. Data is data, and if it is ill-gotten then you punish those who got it, but the data itself is neither good nor evil, it's just data and should be cherished.

Philo Beddoe · 20-03-2015 6:02pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

I was at a conference recently when the topic of cloning came about. Someone mentioned that some scientists they had met in some less regulated countries would love to clone a human and do other less ethical experiments on them. This is all anecdotal of course but the very real possibility of bringing in a Hippocratic oath similar to the one clinicians take for scientists and maybe engineers was brought up.

Wouldn't the ethical principles and laws which already prevent these scientists performing experiments on people prevent them from doing the same experiments on cloned humans?

ScumLord · 20-03-2015 6:42pm

I don't know how it would work in reality, a company working on an engine for agricultural purposes could end up selling them to a military. A company making high tech explosives could be selling them to mining companies. An innocent piece of software could end up being used for all sorts of horrible things.

conorh91 · 26-03-2015 7:39pm

I play football with some South American engineers and architects. They swear oaths, or something similar, before being accredited in their respective fields. I don't know whether this exists elsewhere in Europe; it was the first I'd ever heard of such a thing.

If their engineers and architects are doing it, I imagine the scientists are, too.

The hippocratic oath is not a legal oath, FWIW, and as far as I know, most doctors haven't taken it. Not that it makes a difference.

artanevilla · 26-03-2015 7:42pm

To be a member of Engineers Ireland you've to abide by their code of ethics as far as I'm aware.

evolving_doors · 29-03-2015 9:28am

steddyeddy wrote: »

I was at a conference recently when the topic of cloning came about. Someone mentioned that some scientists they had met in some less regulated countries would love to clone a human and do other less ethical experiments on them. This is all anecdotal of course but the very real possibility of bringing in a Hippocratic oath similar to the one clinicians take for scientists and maybe engineers was brought up.

This would be a voluntary oath (employers would and should discriminate against those who did and didn't take it in theory) that would contain idea such as "don't steal other scientists work ( a real problem) and minimising the negative effect your work will have on people's lives.

The last part is a big one. It means that no scientists would work on new explosives, no new weapons would be developed and things like the atomic bomb would be a thing of the past. Would this be a good idea? Personally I think it will be very tricky to implement but it's happening in one form of the other.

You could still do the science on it! Doesn't mean you have to be building it. Although if you're lab is next door to the factory then you should be feeling uneasy for a good reason. Maybe the weapons are saving lives!!

ScumLord · 30-03-2015 5:31pm

I just don't see how an oath would work for scientific research. It would seem to me like putting limits on scientific research, restricting what they could research in case it could be used for horrible acts.

Just take nuclear. While it has been used to make the worlds most deadly weapon it also has the potential to be the best energy source we've come across if it's done right. Look at all the technology that trickled down from militaries into the general population.

Science isn't good or evil, it's just the study of the natural world. It's how it's applied that matters. Just because science can be used to make weapons doesn't mean that weapon research isn't useful in other ways. It;s always surprising that a breakthrough in one field leads to a new way of doing things in another field that we never thought of.

Manach · 30-03-2015 5:41pm

My 2c opinion. Science itself is morally neutral. It covers the natural world and observations derived from it. The society that the scientists inhabit are the formative mix which determines the type of moral judgments on the use of such scientific knowledge. While some type of moral underpinning (religious or otherwise ) would be advantageous to provide a sense of clarity given the diverse range of ideologies that claim to embrace the scientific as a basis for their version of societal truth which in turn modify scientific institutions eg from the Soviet era.
So to sum up, moral clarity is required but not being implemented within a scientific framework.

Hippocratic Oath for scientists and engineers?

Comments