The morality of scientific openness

Science and Engineering Ethics

Volumn 2, Issue 4, 1996, Pages 411-428

  Munthe, Christian ^a   Welin, Stellan ^a  

^a Centre for Research Ethics   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Ethics of science; Research ethics; Science policy; Scientific information; Scientific openness; Scientific secrecy

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; ETHICS; FREEDOM; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMATION SERVICE; PATENT; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PERSONNEL; PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACH; SCIENCE;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACH;

ETHICS; FREEDOM; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMATION SERVICES; PATENTS; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; RESEARCH PERSONNEL; SCIENCE;

EID: 0030251474     PISSN: 13533452     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/BF02583928     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. On Being a Scientist. Responsible Conduct in Research, report from the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering and Institute of Medicine, second edition, 1995, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
2. See, for example, the overview and numerous references given in McCain, K. W. (1991) "Communication, Competition, and Secrecy: The Production and Dissemination of Research-Related Information in Genetics", Science, Technology & Human Values 16 (4): 491-516.
3. Merton, R. (1973) "The Normative Structure of Science", in: Merton, The Sociology of the Research Process, University of Chicago Press, Chicago & London.
4. Popper, K. R. (1980) The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 10th revised impression, Hutchinson, London.
5. In some cases, scientists have even fed competitors scientific misinformation in order lead them astray. See, for example, J. D. Watson's account of how he and Crick tried to trick L. Pauling into following false trails in the race towards the first description of the structure of DNA, in Watson, J. D. (1968) The Double Helix, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth.
6. McCain, K. W. (1991) "Communication, Competition, and Secrecy: The Production and Dissemination of Research-Related Information in Genetics", Science, Technology & Human Values 16 (4): p. 492.
7. McCain (1991) Ibid., p. 492.
8. McCain (1991) Ibid., p. 493.
9. McCain (1991) Ibid., p. 493.
10. McCain (1991) Ibid., p. 493.
11. McCain (1991) Ibid., p. 493.
12. See, for example, Popper's discussion of "mutual rational control by critical discussion" in Popper, K. R. (1966) The Open Society and its Enemies. Volume 2: The High Tide of Prophecy, 5th revised edition, Routledge, London: chapters 23 & 24. A recent formulation of this is found in Shrader-Frechette, K. (1994), Ethics of Scientific Research, Rowman & Littlefièld, Maryland: p. 76.
13. See, for example, Popper's discussion of "mutual rational control by critical discussion" in Popper, K. R. (1966) The Open Society and its Enemies. Volume 2: The High Tide of Prophecy, 5th revised edition, Routledge, London: chapters 23 & 24. A recent formulation of this is found in Shrader-Frechette, K. (1994), Ethics of Scientific Research, Rowman & Littlefièld, Maryland: p. 76.
14. Famously put forward by Popper in The Logic of Scientific Discovery, pp. 44-48.
15. See, for example, On Being a Scientist. Responsible Conduct in Research, p. 9.
16. On Being a Scientist. Responsible Conduct in Research, p. 9.
17. Rousseau, J-J. (1762) "Discourse of the Arts and Sciences", in: The Social Contract and Discourses, London: Everyman's Library, 1983.
18. Bergström, L. (1993) "Notes on the Value of Science", in: Dag Prawitz, et. al. (eds.) Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, North Holland, Amsterdam.
19. Tännsjö, T. (1994), "In Defence of Science", in; Prawitz, Skyrms & Westerståhl (1994) (eds.), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science in Uppsala. Papers from the 9th International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
20. Tännsjö, T. (1994), "In Defence of Science", in; Prawitz, Skyrms & Westerståhl (1994) (eds.), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science in Uppsala. Papers from the 9th International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
21. This is clearly shown in both Bergstrom's and Tännsjö's papers.
22. For discussions of this general problem, see Glover, J. (1975) "'It Makes No Difference Whether or Not I Do It'", in Singer, P. (1986) (ed.) Applied Ethics, Oxford University Press, Oxford; and Parfit, D. (1984) Reasons and Persons, Clarendon Press, Oxford: pp 75 ff.
23. For discussions of this general problem, see Glover, J. (1975) "'It Makes No Difference Whether or Not I Do It'", in Singer, P. (1986) (ed.) Applied Ethics, Oxford University Press, Oxford; and Parfit, D. (1984) Reasons and Persons, Clarendon Press, Oxford: pp 75 ff.
24. For discussions of this general problem, see Glover, J. (1975) "'It Makes No Difference Whether or Not I Do It'", in Singer, P. (1986) (ed.) Applied Ethics, Oxford University Press, Oxford; and Parfit, D. (1984) Reasons and Persons, Clarendon Press, Oxford: pp 75 ff.
25. C.f., Winter, S. (1989), "Patents in Complex Contexts: Incentives and Effectiveness", in Weil & Snapper (1989) (eds.) Owning Scientific and Technical Information. Value and Ethical Issues, Rutger University Press, New Brunswick & London.
26. C.f., Winter, S. (1989), "Patents in Complex Contexts: Incentives and Effectiveness", in Weil & Snapper (1989) (eds.) Owning Scientific and Technical Information. Value and Ethical Issues, Rutger University Press, New Brunswick & London.
27. Of course, this mechanism is supported by the formal mechanisms of publication in journals after peer-review and copyright regulations.
28. C.f., Shrader-Frechette, Ethics of Scientific Research, pp. 72-78.
29. Gustafsson, B., et. al. (1984), "Focus on The Uppsala Code of Ethics for Scientists", Journal of Peace Research 21: 311-316.
30. One suitable example is the above mentioned possibility to make the submission of unpublished scientific information to open repositories obligatory after a certain period of time. This may, for example, be of great value for health-care policy makers, who often base their decisions on so-called meta-studies of the results in different studies of, say, a new method of treatment. Such studies are faced with the problem that studies made by the pharmaceutical industry without producing a patentable product are kept hidden behind the shield of company secrecy. The withholding of the information obtained by these latter studies may of course seriously distort the results of the meta-studies and thereby cause fatal policy decisions within health-care. See, for example, Villar, J., Carroli, G. & Belizán, J. M. (1995) "Predictive Ability of Meta-analyses of Randomised Controlled Trials", Lancet 345: 772-76; and Egger, M. & Davey Smith, G. (1995) "Misleading Meta-analysis", Biomedical Journal 310: 752-54.
31. One suitable example is the above mentioned possibility to make the submission of unpublished scientific information to open repositories obligatory after a certain period of time. This may, for example, be of great value for health-care policy makers, who often base their decisions on so-called meta-studies of the results in different studies of, say, a new method of treatment. Such studies are faced with the problem that studies made by the pharmaceutical industry without producing a patentable product are kept hidden behind the shield of company secrecy. The withholding of the information obtained by these latter studies may of course seriously distort the results of the meta-studies and thereby cause fatal policy decisions within health-care. See, for example, Villar, J., Carroli, G. & Belizán, J. M. (1995) "Predictive Ability of Meta-analyses of Randomised Controlled Trials", Lancet 345: 772-76; and Egger, M. & Davey Smith, G. (1995) "Misleading Meta-analysis", Biomedical Journal 310: 752-54.
32. C.f. Shrader-Frechette, Ethics of Scientific Research, pp. 72-78.
33. Locke, J. (1690), Two Treatises of Government; Nozick, R. (1974), Anarchy, State and Utopia, Basil Blackwell, Oxford; and Gauthier, D. (1986) Morals by Agreement, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
34. Locke, J. (1690), Two Treatises of Government; Nozick, R. (1974), Anarchy, State and Utopia, Basil Blackwell, Oxford; and Gauthier, D. (1986) Morals by Agreement, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
35. Locke, J. (1690), Two Treatises of Government; Nozick, R. (1974), Anarchy, State and Utopia, Basil Blackwell, Oxford; and Gauthier, D. (1986) Morals by Agreement, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
36. See for example American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1980), Principles of Scientific Freedom and Responsibility, Revised Draft, AAAS, Washington, D.C.: p. 3; Shrader-Frechette, Ethics of Scientific Research, pp. 72 & 77; and Merton (1982) Social Research and the Practising Profession, AH Books, Cambridge, MA, p. 9.
37. See for example American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1980), Principles of Scientific Freedom and Responsibility, Revised Draft, AAAS, Washington, D.C.: p. 3; Shrader-Frechette, Ethics of Scientific Research, pp. 72 & 77; and Merton (1982) Social Research and the Practising Profession, AH Books, Cambridge, MA, p. 9.
38. See for example American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1980), Principles of Scientific Freedom and Responsibility, Revised Draft, AAAS, Washington, D.C.: p. 3; Shrader-Frechette, Ethics of Scientific Research, pp. 72 & 77; and Merton (1982) Social Research and the Practising Profession, AH Books, Cambridge, MA, p. 9.
39. Shrader-Frechette, Ethics of Scientific Research, pp. 72 & 77.
40. Comprehensive critical discussions of the distinction are found in Bennet, J. (1995) The Act Itself, Clarendon Press, Oxford, chapters 4-8; Glover (1977) Causing Death and Saving Lives, Penguin books, Harmondsworth. chapter 7; and Kagan, S. (1989) The Limits of Morality, Clarendon Press, Oxford, chapter 3.
41. Comprehensive critical discussions of the distinction are found in Bennet, J. (1995) The Act Itself, Clarendon Press, Oxford, chapters 4-8; Glover (1977) Causing Death and Saving Lives, Penguin books, Harmondsworth. chapter 7; and Kagan, S. (1989) The Limits of Morality, Clarendon Press, Oxford, chapter 3.
42. Comprehensive critical discussions of the distinction are found in Bennet, J. (1995) The Act Itself, Clarendon Press, Oxford, chapters 4-8; Glover (1977) Causing Death and Saving Lives, Penguin books, Harmondsworth. chapter 7; and Kagan, S. (1989) The Limits of Morality, Clarendon Press, Oxford, chapter 3.
43. Kant, I. (1785) The Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals.
44. C.f., Mill, J. S. (1879), On Liberty.
45. C.f., Shrader-Frechette, Ethics of Scientific Research, pp. 72-78. However, Shrader-Frechette tends to glide from the individual moral question regarding to what extent scientists and other individual agents in the scientific community may be justified in withholding scientific information, to the political question regarding whether or not scientists are more fit than others to make science- and technology-related political decisions. We concur with Shrader-Frechette's firm negative answer to the second question. But this does not answer the first one.
46. This conclusion could theoretically be avoided if Mill's principle is allowed to apply also to collectives. However, not only would this seem to violate the purely individualist prerequisite of classical liberalism, it would also create several problems of which we can only give one example here. In the present case, a "Mill view" which is also applicable to collectives would seem to give the rather strange message that it is forbidden not to inform the public (seen as one collective agent) but, at the same time, permissible not to inform each of those individuals who make up the public.
47. All correspondence should be directed to Christian Munthe. We wish to thank two anonymous referees of Science and Engineering Ethics for their many helpful suggestions on the first version on this paper. A draft version was presented at the 10th International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Florence, Italy, 19-25 August 1995.