Philip Kitcher, John Dewey Professor of Philosophy at Columbia University, gives a public lecture on "The Scientist's Role." Kitcher draws on the examples of Darwinism and climate change to explore how the sciences have come to play a major part in shaping national and global policy. He considers four ethical questions that have surfaced as a result: What responsibilities do scientists have to answer to the needs and aspirations of a broader public? How can scientific expertise be integrated with democratic ideals? Are value judgments inescapable in science? And is the private funding of scientific research a threat to the proper functioning of science? This lecture is part of the series "The Practice of Science in a World of Competing Values," presented by the Rev. Michael C. McFarland, S.J. Center for Religion, Ethics and Culture.

The Centre for Values in Medicine, Science and Technology presents a lecture on Science vs. Politics: The Battle For Integrity by Heather Douglas.

In controversies about technology and society, there is no idea more pro vocative than the notion that technical things have political qualities. At issue is the claim that the machines, structures, and systems of modern material culture can be accurately judged not only for their contributions of efficiency and pro ductivity, not merely for their positive and negative environmental side effects, but also for the ways in which they can embody specific forms of power and authority. Since ideas of this kind have a persistent and troubling presence in discussions about the meaning of technology, they deserve explicit attention.

Biologist Sheila Patek has faced criticism for her research on mantis shrimp and trap-jaw ants. Members of Congress have called her studies a waste of taxpayer money. In this video Patek explains how dismissing her work misses the aim of scientific research and discovery.

Here is the dilemma: Weapons research produces in the first place not guns, bombs, bullets and planes and the various command, control and communications hardware and software needed to use these things, but plans, blueprints and designs – knowledge and know-how. Unless these useful plans are lost or destroyed, they can be implemented or instantiated many times over, and thus project unforeseen into the future.

From time to time, people suggest to me that scientists ought to give more consideration to social problems – especially that they should be more responsible in considering the impact of science upon society. This same suggestion must be made to many other scientists, and it seems to be generally believed that if the scientists would only look at these very difficult social problems and not spend so much time fooling with the less vital scientific ones, great success would come of it. I believe that a scientist looking at non-scientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy- and when he talks about a non-scientific matter, he will sound as naïve as anyone untrained in the matter. 

Within the burgeoning field of synthetic biology, teams of biologists and engineers are making great strides in understanding the cell and its functioning. However, there is more that should be discussed than the triumphs.  There are also the dark purposes to which science (and synthetic biology in particular) can be put.  Worries range from the development of pathogenic bioweapons to the potential contamination of native gene pools in our environment.  The question is, are scientists responsible for the potentially negative impacts of their work?

The difficult economic situation in Mexico has put pressure on our politicians to trim and tighten the budget, so scientists and policy makers have been forced to answer the question: What is basic research good for? Some months ago, a new law for science and technology was proposed; it has been discussed in many forums. The final text of that law lists the guidelines for deciding which scientific and technological activities should be supported. Such activities should contribute to solving the country’s problems and should demonstrate a strong sense of social responsibility. That is, the country needs the kind of applied research that will have a short-term local impact on education, environment, and the quality of life of the population.

Economic globalization has profound implications for health. The scale of injustice at a global level, reflected in inexorably widening disparities in wealth and health, also has critical implications for health related research – in particular when the opportunities for exploiting research subjects are carefully considered. The challenge of developing universal guidelines for international clinical research is addressed against the background of a polarizing, yet interdependent, world in which all are ultimately threatened by lack of social justice. It is proposed that in such a world there is a need for new ways of thinking about research and its relevance to health at a global level. Responsibility to use knowledge and power wisely requires more radical changes to guidelines for research ethics than are currently under consideration. 

The results from the latest university research audit indicate that research in Australia is improving. This suggests that the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) exercise is working: ERA has achieved its main aim of boosting the quality of Australian research. However, this headline statement masks a plethora of concerns.