University College London



Medical doctors have to sign up to a ‘Hippocratic Oath’. Should scientists do something similar?

The Hippocratic Oath, of some form, has been in circulation for just as long as the practise it is ascribed to. Even since western medicine’s humble beginnings doctors have acknowledged there to be ethical responsibilities in their practise. There are clearly ethical implications of scientific research, however of the two practises only medicine has a drawn pledge that its practitioners should serve. The reasons for this are not obvious; thus follows a discussion of whether scientists should adhere to a similar set of promises and whether any drawn ‘universal code’ is either valid or appropriate.

Those who receive medical training will often have some study of applied ethics integrated into their course. This may be necessary because of the inherent limitations in the service a doctor can provide: when to act without the legal consent of a present guardian, who to save first in an emergency, and dealing with shortages of organs available for transplant; these are just a few examples of situations requiring the need to apply ethics. When doctors employ their knowledge to deal with a patient, they are also employing their judgement. Thusly the Hippocratic Oath and education on medical ethics may serve to establish a consensus on how to act in such situations. Not only to help assess when there has been an ‘error in judgement,’ but also to issue confidence for all concerned when a doctor makes an ‘accepted’ decision. There is certainly a lesser focus on ethics within the realm of scientific research. It is rarer to see a study of ethics integrated into scientific training, despite the notable concerns that may arise from a discovery or invention: could this be physically dangerous to anyone?, could this cause political conflicts?, could this cause economical or sociological harm to a group of people? The invention of the hydrogen bomb is an example of where there was possibly a lack of these considerations. This example is particularly relevant to the discussion as Joseph Rotblat, who resigned from the Manhattan project, campaigned for a ‘Hippocratic Oath for scientists’ himself. Many researchers were involved in the Manhattan project, these researchers could be held partially responsible for the vast consequences of developing the H-bomb, including the great loss of human life and provoking the Cold war. However would an oath really have prevented such happenings? The difference in how doctors and researchers operate might indicate a reason for the differing ethical focus. Doctors deal directly with the public, while science research impacts society indirectly. −From a legal stand point the doctor is at greater risk to be liable for decisions made during their careers, but more importantly there is a fundamental difference in their link for contributing to society. It may be meaningless for scientists to have an oath relating to their practise as with doctors, because politicians/businesses deal with the technology, not the scientists. A Hippocratic Oath for scientists may simply not be valid; such an ethical pledge could be unscientific. The goal of ‘science’ is to extend the boundaries of human knowledge by cataloguing and explaining observed phenomena. Scientists are servants to this cause; they should not be compromised to collect less knowledge than their limit. As scientists are not the ones dealing with the public in the direct sense, if the general consensus is that the information being collected may be dangerous, it should be the people who will manage the information/discovery that should take the oath. It could be damaging if researchers were to speak for humanity and not explore every avenue that may arise, because no one could say what possibilities the door is being closed to. We would not want to be ignorant of this knowledge under the name of science. It is therefore not the responsibility of scientists to filter such discoveries but the responsibility of Governments. Clearly a drawn oath of this form may be contradictory, however there could be value drawing up a code about professional conduct of the practise, and in fact this was done in 2007 by the UK government’s chief scientific advisor.

Sir David King laid out a ‘universal code of ethics’ for researchers in 2007, while since 2008, biomedical graduates of the University of Toronto have pledged to a scientific oath. One may consider there to be a fundamental distinction in the ideas the two codes express. King’s code was drawn to promote openness, honesty and integrity in researchers’ work; it is a guide to act professional. However the University of Toronto’s oath is of the form that was rejected above, and this is clear from the line “I will pursue knowledge and create knowledge for the greater good.”1 Comparatively the modern Hippocratic Oath is more sensible than University of Toronto’s oath as the first line, “I swear to fulfil, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant”2, accounts for the fact that we can only act with judgement, for we cannot know the full consequence of all our possible actions. Although the point in King’s code, “Minimise impacts on people, animals and the environment,”3 is quite unrealistic if you consider an ‘impact’ to be any change, one might consider the code to be pitched at the right level if its goal is to achieve universal acceptance in today’s society. By researching the response of David King’s code, the critical opinion is that it is too moderate. Many businesses already have ethical codes in place; therefore the code has had little effect on scientific conduct. At least the code is self consistent with its pledge to minimise impact! However for this code there is no parallel to the value a medic gains from their Hippocratic Oath. Perhaps practical examples of situations that might be faced by the contemporary scientist should be penned; such a document would promote discussion and establish a consensus of ideals, with the consideration that the goal of science is to collect knowledge. These ideals would simply raise awareness of ethics in science, any oath that might arise from this would not be a candidate for universal acceptance but would encompass these wider opinions and should be published for the scientist to take in private if he or she should choose. Such a document would assist scientists in recognising the effects of their practise without causing impedance to the pursuit of increasing human knowledge.

References

1

2

3

Bibliography







(1053 words)

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download