How are unintended consequences or applications of science policies anticipated and dealt with?
In 1993, a team of researchers from George Washington University shocked the world after presenting research where they successfully created the first clone of a human embryo. Without receiving any prior approval (minimal policies existed for the technology at the time) and without providing a proper explanations of the limitations of their work, the researchers faced public outcry as the public feared their technology would enable the creation of clone armies. Meanwhile, the researcher’s aims were merely to support couples unable to conceive naturally. Despite the researcher’s claims on numerous prime time television to allay the public’s fears, two years later all federal funding for such research was banned for over a decade, and the ban still causes significant barriers to researchers in this field.
While ideally the most polarizing reactions in science would be those planned for in the lab, science, like any other human enterprise, can be fraught with controversy and unfortunate misconduct. At times, the policy governing science can be the source of conflict, as in the case of budget allocations or research bans, but policy is also a vital tool for mitigating conflict as well. Because the difference is often subtle, a key question to ask is how well does the policy confront the legal, moral, and ethical outcomes of the conduct at hand?
Before digging too deep into this topic, it’s important to distinguish scientific controversy from what we can call scientific debate. We can think of the latter as being synonymous with peer review and relies on comparing evidence found in documented research methodologies. The former, on the other hand, emerges from issues outside of scientific methodologies or where scientific evidence is inconclusive and/or at odds with other legal, ethical, and moral values found in society. Perennial examples of controversy include science’s role in defining the beginning and end of life, which provides details regarding the nature of life at either stage but not our obligations regarding one’s choice for compassionately ending or extending the life of another.
As a primary means of mitigating scientific controversy, most US based scientists receive training in the responsible conduct of research (RCR). RCR training, pertains to standards in research, academics, and publication that help align the work of scientists with the ethical and moral norms of society while also supporting scientific goals. See the table on the right for an overview of RCR.
Science policy can play a major role in supporting the internal scientific concerns of RCR, or Procedural Ethics, as well as helping address the inherent tensions among them. For instance, Federal Whistleblower laws, while not exclusively science policy, provide mechanisms for Federally funded scientists to minimize any sensitive disclosure of their work while also providing an opportunity to express their concerns as a socially responsible person. Challenges still exist and are constantly evolving within science and externally as we’ll explore below. As such, science policy analysis must be vigilantly assessed and reviewed to keep up.
Beyond the Procedural Ethical issues outlined on the previous page, scientists and policy-makers alike should also consider the extrinsic ethics of science as research and development influences the implementation of policy and vice-a-versa. See some of the notable extrinsic ethical dilemmas of science and research outlined on the right. While assessing science policy, consider the ways, if at all, the policy could result in any of the extrinsic ethical dilemmas listed.
Fundamental to most of the extrinsic ethical issues is the strict empiricism at the core of all great scientific work. That is to say, science is capable of providing accurate, useful, and unbiased information through rigorous measurement and testing of hypothesis. However, as a result, Science is able to answer how and why the world works but not how we should feel about the world and our place in it. For that reason, neither scientists or policy makers can go it alone and in fact need the expertise and perspective of each other to make sound policies and discoveries for society.
References and Further Reading
- Mintrom, M. (2008). Competitive federalism and the governance of controversial science. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 39(4), 606-631.
- Resnik, D. B. (2005). The ethics of science: An introduction. Routledge.
- Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. (2016). Bioethics for every generation: Deliberation and education in health, science, and technology.
- The Nature of Science-Related Public Controversies. (2017). In Communicating science effectively: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.