V_V comments on A brief history of ethically concerned scientists - Less Wrong

68 Post author: Kaj_Sotala 09 February 2013 05:50AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (150)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: V_V 10 February 2013 12:13:20PM 1 point [-]

Thanks for the clarification.

However, if you are not specifically endorsing scientific secrecy, but just ethics in conducting science, then your opening paragraph seems a bit of a strawman:

Today, the general attitude towards scientific discovery is that all research should be shared and disseminated as widely as possible, and that scientists are not themselves responsible for how their work is used. And for someone who is interested in science for its own sake, or even for someone who mostly considers research to be a way to pay the bills, this is a tempting attitude. It would be easy to only focus on one’s work, and leave it up to others to decide what to do with it.

Seriously, who is claiming that scientists should not take ethics into consideration while they do research?

Comment author: timtyler 11 February 2013 02:06:34AM *  0 points [-]

Seriously, who is claiming that scientists should not take ethics into consideration while they do research?

It's more that humans specialise. Scientist and moral philosopher aren't always the same person.

Comment author: whowhowho 11 February 2013 12:03:24PM 2 points [-]

OTOH, you don't get let off moral responsibility just because it isn't your job.

Comment author: timtyler 11 February 2013 11:28:06PM 1 point [-]

It's more that many of the ethical decisions - about what to study and what to do with the resulting knowledge - are taken out of your hands.

Comment author: whowhowho 12 February 2013 01:27:03AM 2 points [-]

Only they are not, because you are not forced to do a job just because you have invested in the training --however strange that may seem to Homo Economicus.

Comment author: timtyler 12 February 2013 10:52:13AM *  1 point [-]

Resigning would probably not affect the subjects proposed for funding, the number of other candidates available to do the work, or the eventual outcome. If you are a scientist who is concerned with ethics there are probably lower-hanging fruit that don't involve putting yourself out of work.

Comment author: whowhowho 12 February 2013 11:02:50AM 1 point [-]

If those lower hanging fruit are things like choosing what to research, then those are not "taken out of your hands" as stated in the grandfather.

Comment author: timtyler 12 February 2013 11:49:51AM 0 points [-]

Some of those decisions are taken of scientists hands - since they are made by funding bodies. Scientists don't often get to study what they like, they are frequently constrained by what subjects receive funding. That is what I was referring to.

Comment author: V_V 11 February 2013 11:34:05AM 0 points [-]

Moral philosophers hopefully aren't the only people who take ethics into account when deciding what to do.

Comment author: BerryPick6 11 February 2013 12:53:23PM 1 point [-]

Some data suggests they make roughly the same ethical choices everyone else does.