Viewpoint

Science Code of Ethics Flawed

Simon Nathan

When the Royal Society of New Zealand launched its Code of Ethics, a newspaper headline, "Scientists' code to hit ratbags", suggested that this would be a major advance on other ethical codes currently available.

As I was then preparing some lectures on ethical issues in science, I hoped that this would be a definitive statement of science ethics that would be useful to New Zealand students.

Having been on the group that prepared the Geological Society's ethical code some twenty years earlier, I was also interested to see how it compared with modern ideas on ethics. It is a reasonable assumption that this would be a yardstick against which other scientific groups could measure their own ethical codes.

On all counts I was disappointed and disturbed.

When considering the ethical responsibilities of professional groups, one of the key questions is deciding who they are primarily responsible to: Their clients? Their colleagues? Their professional organisation? or to the community at large?

In view of the widespread community suspicion of science and technology, it could be expected that the Royal Society ethical code would start with a clear vision and statement of the responsibility of scientists to the community in general. But this is almost entirely absent, apart from encouragement to communicate results to the general public and to avoid misrepresentation.

This lack of perceived community responsibility can be contrasted with the recent code of ethics of the Institute of Professional Engineers (IPENZ), which states that members shall have:

As their first priority the health and safety of the community; this shall take precedence over their responsibility to clients, colleagues or other interests

Similar statements are in the Code of Ethics of the New Zealand Computer Society:

Members...will use their special knowledge and skills for the benefit of the public, and will serve employers and clients with integrity and loyalty, subject to an over-riding responsibility to the public interest

as well as the code of the Geological Society of New Zealand:

A geologist's responsibility to the public shall be paramount...

Initially I had assumed that the issue of responsibility to the community was an unfortunate oversight in the Royal Society code. But then I discovered the section dealing with relationships with clients, which states that:

When scientists and technologists transfer technology to paying clients, the interests of the client are paramount

Now, this leads to an interesting quandary. Suppose that a scientist and an engineer are both working together on the same project for a client. They discover that the project may have disastrous environmental effects, but their client says that this information may not be divulged to the Regional Council (who will have to approve the project) or to the public (who might object). The engineer, covered by the IPENZ Code of Ethics, has a clear duty to the public, whereas the scientist, under the RSNZ code, owes his full allegiance to the client.

The Royal Society code does make allowance for discrepancy between ethical codes (section 4d), and suggests that where there is a conflict in standards, the higher standard shall prevail. But how does anyone decide which is the higher standard: the paramount interests of the client (RSNZ code) or the community (IPENZ and other codes)?

I wonder how many New Zealand scientists realise the implications of the RSNZ Code of Ethics, let alone support it?

Much of the Royal Society code is conventional, and deals with basic ethical issues that confront scientists. Although detailing the issues surrounding publication and reporting of results quite effectively, there is no mention of the more difficult issue of failing to publish results.

There are many cases of scientists sitting on data or interpretations for years, and preventing or discouraging others from working on the same topic. In my opinion, this is improper in some cases, and certainly needs more discussion in the scientific community.

Viewed as a whole, the new RSNZ Code of Ethics is disappointing because it takes such a narrow view of science. I suggest that the Code should be treated as a first draft, needing urgent revision. In updating it, the Council of the Royal Society should seek advice on modern ethical standards as well as reviewing the codes of other organisations.

As it stands, it won't catch many ratbags.

The Code of Ethics of the Royal Society of New Zealand is available on the RSNZ's Web site at
http://www.rsnz.govt.nz/about/ethics.html

Simon Nathan lives in Palmerston North