.Scientific Freedom and Responsibility: Report of AAAS Committee The lead article in the May 16, 1975 issue of Science is a summary of the report of the AAAS Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility. The summary (and the report, which is available from AAAS) arise from the Committee's consideration of its charge: 1) to study and report on the general conditions reauired for scientific freedom and responsihilitv: 2) &develop suitable criteria and prockdures foithe objective and impartial study of prohlems related to scientific freedom and responsibility; 3) to rerommend mechanisms to enable AAAS to review specific instances in which scientific freedom is alleged to have been abridged or otherwise endangered, or those in which responsible scientific conduct is alleged to have been violated. Concluding that the issues of scientific freedom and responsibility are basically inseparable, the Committee affirms that scientific freedom. like academic freedom. is an acquired right, "generally accepted by society as necessary for the advancement of knowledge from which society may benefit." It notes that scientific responsibilities arise as a result of the scientist's special knowledge, and from the insight emerging from that knowledge. Issues of freedom and responsibility are viewed as being inextricably intermingleb when, for example, a scientist, engineer, physician or other expert becomes aware of hazards arising from a process, product or material, or when he learns of possible improvements in technology that deserve to be adopted, but are being neglected. Addressing itself to the question "Should there he forbidden areas in basic research?". the Committee sees the need for inhibition of certain kinds of research, especially in areas involving- human heines " and animals. hut it ooints out that certain experiments (such as those that conclusively demonstrated the transmission of yellow fever by mosquitoes) may be justified, even if they involve great risks. It em~hasizesthat the decision to conduct or not to conduct experiments in critical areas involves an expert balanced judgment of probahilities and risks. I t cautions against overly-rigid restrictions on needed research, citing fetal research as an example. Here, restrictina research on fetuses that do not survive abortions can dela; our learning how to protect countless other fetuses from harmful agents and influences. The Committee urges that, with rare exceptions, (such as in a major war situation) data that provide significant advances in fundamental science not be kept secret. Problems of freedom and responsihility in the areas of applied science and technological innovation are seen as much more formidable than those in basic research. The report rejects both the notion that there is inherent evil in technology, and the concept of the "technological imperative''-the idea that new technological developments must be pursued wherever they may lead. I t asks that mechanisms be established to &tically evaluate new technology before i t is introduced and to constantly monitor it after its first introduction. Considerahle attention is given to developing criteria and procedures for the objective and impartial study of prohlems in the area of freedom and responsihility. Ohserving that, in most instances, these prohlems involve the
Ieditorially speaking
right, and the responsihility, of an employee to warn concerning the dangers inherent in some product or process with which he has become familiar in the course of his work, the Committee recognizes that a complex of human factors, ethical judgments and standards of value must be combined with scientific evidence in any "objective and impartial" examination of such prohlems. I t approaches the matter of establishing criteria by asking questions such as: "How will the proposed decision or procedure affect human health or safety, and the general quality and amenities of life, for all people concerned? Will a decision to require a drastic cleanup of operating conditions in a certain industry cause much of the industry to close down, with loss of jobs and production? How should such risks be balanced against considerations of safety and health?" Major emphasis is given to the question of how the employee who speaks out will he assured of a fair hearing without fear of reprisals, and with a good prospect that his recommendations, if judged sound, actually will be put into practice. Noting that many scientific and engineering societies have developed codes of ethics relating to the responsibility of employers and to the professional and personal conduct of scientific and technical employees, the Committee calls for addition of a due process component to these codes. This component would make provision for the review of d i s ~ u t e sarisine between manaeement and scientific or professional empioyees through hoearing and appeal processes involvine neutral or third-hodv narticination. The ~ommitteeproposesthat professional societies become active on behalf of their members who are attempting to defend the public interest in areas related to their professional competence. I t is ~ r o ~ o s ethat d the societies might deal with such issues b y setting up committees of inquiry in cases where a serious violation of scientific freedom or responsibility is suspected. Results of the inquiry might he publicized and, on occasion, the professional society might initiate lawsuits on behalf of members who might have suffered injustices when acting in the puhlic interest. An especially cogent point is made in connection with scientific controversies:
-.
.
~~~
~
In scientific controversies, it should not be necessary for the champions of differentviews to operate like adversaries in a court of law; the opposing sides presumably should be able to find a large area of agreement about scientific facts that are not in dispute. The real disagreements in such cases usually turn not on sdentific facts, but on the relative weight to be given to different kinds of scientific facts, and on extrascientific issues involving political judgment and broad general perspectives on human nature and human motives. These factors always enter into the practical of science and techdecisions that must be made in a~~lieations .. nulogy. Whrn a scientist or terhnolugist stntes n raqe for art ion of a certain sort u n such an ictre. ~t is important that he make clear the general suppositlonr from which he starts. The report of the Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility is a major step forward in an area whose importance cannot he overemphasized. There remains for scientists and their societies the duty of assuming the responsibilities the report has shown with such clarity to he uniquely theirs. WTL Volume 52, Number 7,July 1975 / 417
