Topics in Contemporary Ethics – February 14, 2017

Personalizing Genomics and Gene Editing

The focus will be on recent initiatives and scientific developments that make personalized medicine more of a
reality at our own institution, for the public and for research as a whole. This may include gene editing
(CRISPR/CAS9), patient databanks (23andme, BCH) and government initiatives for personalized medicine.
Here are some links or papers that will be helpful in your preparation, but please feel free to do your own
research. I am looking forward to a lively discussion.

http://www.nature.com/news/uk-scientists-gain-licence-to-edit-genes-in-human-embryos-1.19270

http://www.nature.com/news/chinese-scientists-genetically-modify-human-embryos-1.17378

http://www.nature.com/news/don-t-edit-the-human-germ-line-1.17111

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6271/403.short

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/02/boys-only-panel-endorses-mitochondrial-therapy-says-start-male-
embryos

http://www.childrenshospital.org/research-and-innovation/innovation/initiatives/precision-link

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160202/ncomms10448/full/ncomms10448.html

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-f-d-a-vs-personal-genetic-testing

http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2013/ucm376296.htm

http://www.apollinairetheatre.com/productions/productions.html

Informed Consent was inspired by the case of the Havasupai Tribe who dwell deep in the Grand
Canyon versus Arizona State University. In 1989, members of the Havasupai Tribe began giving DNA samples
to a scientific team from Arizona State University in the hopes of discovering why they had such an
extraordinarily high rate of diabetes. But ASU used the samples not just for testing for diabetes, but for a range
of other diseases as well as geographical origins, which conflicted directly with their creation story. The tribe
sued for damages and for the return of their DNA samples. The case was settled out of court in 2010, but the
case and the issues it raised continue to be actively studied and debated.

Points to consider and topics for discussion:

1) What are the benefits and potential negative consequences to society of gene editing in the human
germ line? Of sequencing individuals?
2) What role or responsibility does the research institution have in protecting patient samples and data?
Or in making patient resources available for the research community?
3) Should clinicians and researchers with patient samples/information be able to work with companies to
work towards finding new drug targets and new drugs?
4) What are the positive and negative outcomes to information such as that gained by 23andme?
5) How do culture and the media come into play?
Introduction to Section on Scientist as a Responsible Member of Society

Scientific discoveries sometimes lead to applications that can have profoundly beneficial
or disruptive effects on society and the evolution of social norms. The fact that we
operate within a functional society where some degree of cooperation exists, suggests
that most of us accept certain organization values/principles about relationships between
individuals and between individuals, institutions, and authority. These values/principles
are typically captured by inexact terms such as freedom, equality, autonomy,
beneficence, non-maleficence. Of course, that we may abstractly agree on the list of
fundamental ideals does not mean that we will agree on their relative priority in context.

The readings selected for this session are meant to stimulate a discussion about what
broader social responsibility might mean for scientists engaged in discover of knowledge.
We recognize that, within this kind of conversation, there may be a wide range of
reasonable, informed opinion. Our modest goal is to identify 1) some of the underlying
values that animate such reasonable, informed opinion, and 2) some justifications that can
be offered for prioritizing some values over others.

Required:

1. A Hippocratic Oath for scientists.

Rotblat J. Science. 1999 Nov 19; 286 (5444): 1475.

2. Engaging the Public (Letters to the Editor –ASBMB)

Thomas O. Baldwin

3. Reasons scientists avoid thinking about ethics.

Wolpe PR. Cell. 2006 Jun 16; 125(6): 1023-5

4. Should we make a fuss? A case for social responsibility in science.

Beckwith J, Wuang F. Nat Biotechnol. 2005 Dec; 23 (12): 1479-80

Questions for consideration

1. In your capacity as a scientist, do you think you have any personal responsibilities
to society?
a. If so, what is the basis for that responsibility (e.g. is it merely contingent
on your source of funding being taxpayer dollars?)
2. As a professional class engaged in discovery, do you think scientists ought to
possess a special set of responsibilities to society given the potential broader
impact of our work?
a. If so, why?
b. If not, why not?
Science 19 November 1999: 
Vol. 286. no. 5444, p. 1475  Prev | Table of Contents | Next 
DOI: 10.1126/science.286.5444.1475 

Editorial 
A Hippocratic Oath for Scientists 
Sir Joseph Rotblat * 

The tremendous advances in pure science made during the 20th century have completely 
changed the relation between science and society. Through its technological applications, 
science has become a dominant element in our lives. It has enormously improved the 
quality of life. It has also created great perils, threatening the very existence of the human 
species. Scientists can no longer claim that their work has nothing to do with the welfare 
of the individual or with state policies. 

However, many scientists still cling to an ivory tower mentality founded on precepts such 
as "science should be done for its own sake," "science is neutral," and "science cannot be 
blamed for its misapplication." Their logic rests on the distinction between pure and 
applied science. It is only the application of science that can be harmful, they allege. As 
for pure science, they say that the scientist's only obligation is to make the results of 
research known to the public. What the public does with them is its business, not that of 
the scientist. This amoral attitude is in my opinion actually immoral, because it eschews 
personal responsibility for the likely consequences of one's actions. 

Nowadays there is much talk about human rights but much less about human 
responsibilities. The ever­growing interdependence of the world community (largely 
arising from the applications of science) offers great benefits to individuals, but by the 
same token it imposes responsibilities on them. Every citizen must be accountable for his 
or her deeds. This applies particularly to scientists, for the reasons I have outlined. It is 
also in their own interest, because the public holds scientists responsible for any misuse 
of science. Even the advocates of a laissez­faire attitude in science must realize the 
importance of a good public image. The public has the means to control science by 
withholding the purse or by imposing restrictive regulations. It is far better that scientists 
themselves take appropriate steps to ensure responsible application of their work. 

National academies of science should explicitly include ethical issues in their terms of 
reference. Such issues must become an integral part of the scientist's ethos. Professional 
organizations of scientists should work out ethical codes of conduct for their members, 
including the monitoring of research projects for possible harm to society. It is 
particularly important to ensure that new entrants into the scientific profession are made 
aware of their social and moral responsibilities. One way would be to initiate a pledge for 
scientists, a sort of Hippocratic oath, to be taken at graduation. As in the medical 
profession, the main value of such an oath might be symbolic, but I believe it would also
stimulate young scientists to reflect on the wider consequences of their intended field of 
work before embarking on a career in academia or industry. This process of reflection 
would be much enhanced if courses on the ethical aspects of science were introduced into 
university curricula for science students. 

Various formulations of oaths have been proposed, and there is a considerable literature 
on this. There is no need for a single formulation, however. I like the pledge initiated by 
the Student Pugwash Group in the United States, which has already been signed by 
thousands of students from many countries. It reads: "I promise to work for a better 
world, where science and technology are used in socially responsible ways. I will not use 
my education for any purpose intended to harm human beings or the environment. 
Throughout my career, I will consider the ethical implications of my work before I take 
action. While the demands placed upon me may be great, I sign this declaration because I 
recognize that individual responsibility is the first step on the path to peace." 

The author is emeritus professor of physics at the University of London and a 1995 Nobel 
Peace Prize laureate.
Engaging the Public

Engaging the Public

0

Dear Editor,
A recent article in the Texas Tribune reported on a survey
revealing that 51 percent of Texans don’t believe in
evolution, and 30 percent believe that dinosaurs and
humans lived at the same time. Ignorance of basic
scientific principles has been a national problem for
generations, and it isn’t getting any better. Willingness to
embrace the mystical to explain natural phenomena seems
to be on the increase.

I think that we scientists are to blame for much of this lack

of scientific understanding. We take the taxpayers’ dollars
and have a lot of fun doing great science, but we seldom
take the time to tell the taxpayers what we have learned in
language that they can understand. Most people do not
understand what science is, let alone what it is not, and
they do not understand the fundamental difference
between scientific and religious thought.

I feel that we should be doing something to engage the

public, to let them know about the excitement and
fascination of science. If every college and university in the
country were to develop a lecture series focused on science for the public, it would advance our cause
enormously.

Here, in inland Southern California, where I landed 18 months ago, religious conservatives make up a
significant percentage of the population. Shortly after arriving, I challenged our faculty members to
develop a five-lecture series on the science of evolution. The faculty members initially were concerned
that the public would either torch the campus or just not show up. They wanted to hold the lectures
in a small classroom since they were sure that no more than 20 people would attend. I insisted that
we use the university theater, which seats about 500. As it turned out, the series was standing-room-
only— people literally filled the aisles— at all five lectures. No creationists made grandstand
appearances. Our only demonstrators were a group of atheists who showed up expecting a fight
(wanting to help us, I suppose).

The series was so popular that it is being replayed this year at our Palm Desert campus. I went to
one lecture; once again, the room was completely full of people wanting to learn. It was inspiring.
This spring, we are doing a series on global climate change. Again, we will have five lectures on topics
ranging from “how we know what we think we know” to “how will agriculture adapt to the changes
that we predict.”

The core of these series is the science. No magic, no big words, just simple logic. Intelligent but
uninformed people can understand this stuff. We are particularly trying to draw in science teachers
from the local school districts, to give them the information they need to make science current and
relevant to their students. I believe that it is incumbent upon us to engage the public in this dialogue.
In our experience, the faculty members are elated to engage in this sort of outreach, and, in our neck
of the world, at least, we are having great success.

Thomas O. Baldwin
Dean, College of Natural and Agricultural Sciences
University of California, Riverside

http://www.asbmb.org/asbmbtoday/asbmbtoday_article.aspx?id=6760[1/5/2017 1:31:30 PM]

Leading Edge

Commentary

Reasons Scientists Avoid Thinking about

Ethics
Paul Root Wolpe1,*
1
Department of Psychiatry and Center for Bioethics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
*Contact: wolpep@mail.med.upenn.edu
DOI 10.1016/j.cell.2006.06.001

Science is a powerful force for change in modern society. As the professionals at its helm,
scientists have a unique responsibility to shepherd that change with thoughtful advocacy
of their research and careful ethical scrutiny of their own behavior.

All good science is subversive. “I’m Not Trained in Ethics” at the heart of my scientific pur-
It challenges beliefs, pushes the Ethics as an academic field has an suits? How do I advance the cause
boundaries of existing structures of established body of knowledge, a of scientific progress? Whom does
knowledge, and portends a future set of disciplinary concepts, a canon, my research serve? Serious consid-
different from the current one. For and many other trappings of an intel- eration of those questions qualifies
that reason, the Controllers, who lectual discipline. Most scientists are a scientist for participation in the
rule Aldous Huxley’s Brave New not formally trained in ethics. How- ongoing discussion of scientific val-
World, forbade new scientific inquiry, ever, scholars trained in ethics do ues, even without a specialized train-
declaring “truth’s a menace, science work with scientists and scientific ing in ethics.
is a public danger.” societies helping to set guidelines,
The public, whose taxes fund assess the impact of new technolo- “My Scientific Work Has Little to
much scientific work, is keenly gies, and so on. Do with Ethics”
interested in where science is going Scientists can learn the ethos of What does the daily work of science
and the integrity of those who are science by example. Albert Einstein have to do with ethics? The ethical
taking us there. The unprecedented once said “Most people say that it norms of science are so embedded in
ability of scientists to manipulate is the intellect which makes a great scientific work that we can easily take
the building blocks of life, to cre- scientist. They are wrong: it is char- them for granted. When asked why he
ate altered biological processes, acter.” Behaving ethically is the prin- made his stem cell lines freely avail-
and to understand and re-engi- cipal way that mentors transfer the able to other scientists, Harvard’s
neer biological systems promises ethical standards of their profession Douglas Melton replied, “because
fundamental changes in how we to their trainees. All the formal ethics there’s a long scientific tradition of
heal, how we reproduce, and how training in the world cannot compen- making the fruits of one’s research
we relate to the living world. Sci- sate for an unethical mentor. How- available to others” (Dreifus, 2006).
ence tends to be portrayed by the ever, the failure to integrate training Making reagents freely available to
media in extremes, as a series of in professional ethics into the basic colleagues is a fundamental ethical
sensationalized discoveries punc- scientific curriculum impoverishes tenet of modern science. The work of
tuated by conflicts and scandals. the educational mission and, ulti- historians, philosophers, social scien-
It is certainly understandable that mately, science itself. tists, and others shows that the ques-
the public would demand care- The National Institutes of Health tions scientists choose to pursue,
ful examination of such powerful (NIH) now requires that an ethics the kinds of data that are considered
technologies. curriculum discussing protection of important, the dynamics of collabora-
Scientists, however, are often human participants in research be tion within a scientific team, the inter-
wary of ethical scrutiny, and gener- taught in the graduate programs it pretation of results, and many other
ally reluctant to engage the public in funds. It would be a shame, however, aspects of scientific work are perme-
moral conversation about their work. if training in ethics stopped there. To ated by ethical assumptions, such
Why aren’t scientists more engaged remain true to the highest goals of as the value of sharing the products
in the ethical debates that character- science, scientists should periodi- of scientific inquiry, and the value of
ize the public discourse about sci- cally revisit the big questions: What mentorship. Science is an eminently
ence? Why are scientists not more is science for? What are the values I social activity.
effective advocates of their own bring to my scientific work? Why did What distinguishes a profession
work? There are a number of reasons I become a scientist, and why am I is not only a body of knowledge or
that scientists offer, and each is wor- one now? What are the moral moti- expertise. Professional authority is
thy of examination. vations, inclinations, and principles derived also from a cultural tradition

Cell 125, June 16, 2006 ©2006 Elsevier Inc.  1023

of service carried out with an expec- In fact, however, there is wide- breakthrough. After the announce-
tation of high ethical behavior. Pro- spread consensus on a host of ethi- ment, polls showed that more than
fessions try to assure such behav- cal issues in science policy. Con- 90% of Americans opposed the
ior by developing codes of ethics. sensus tends to be hidden because cloning of animals. Furthermore, the
For example, the American Medical it is taken for granted; only the con- media were filled with stories about
Association was founded in Philadel- troversies make the headlines. For creating human clones for organ
phia in 1847 by writing and publicly example, developed countries have transplants, celebrity vanity clones,
reading a new code of ethics. Many forged a wide-ranging ethical con- etc., before scientists could reign in
specific scientific societies have sensus on research involving human the wild speculation and describe
developed codes of ethics. Indeed, subjects. This includes universal what cloning is and what it can and
later this year, the British govern- standards of informed consent, risk/ can’t do. Had the ethical discussion
ment’s chief scientific advisor will benefit analyses, ethics review com- kept pace with the research, the
be releasing an ethical code setting mittees such as Institutional Review global hyperventilation over Dolly
out the values and responsibilities of Boards, mandatory testing in animals might well not have taken place.
all scientists who work in the United first, protocols to assess toxicity and
Kingdom (Pincock, 2006). side effects, conflict of interest dec- “Others Will Make the Ethical
Clearly plagiarism, fabricating larations, and subject’s rights (such Decisions”
results, misrepresenting contributions as the right to refuse to participate in Scientists in modern technological
to a paper, bypassing informed con- research without incurring any pen- societies are professionals, and their
sent, stealing ideas, and other forms alty and to withdraw from research work should be viewed through the
of scientific misconduct have a detri- at any time). At the boundaries of lens of professional ethics (Chad-
mental effect on science. But it is not the consensus are areas of ethical wick, 2005). Scientists, like all pro-
just misconduct that is threatening debate, but that is how it should be. fessionals, have ethical responsibili-
science. A fundamental tenet of aca- The public discourse eventually may ties at three levels: First, scientists
demic science and medicine is the make its way to consensus, but in must assume personal responsibil-
ability to replicate published research. ethics, process is at least as impor- ity for the integrity of their research,
In a survey published in JAMA, 47% of tant as product. their relations with colleagues and
geneticists who requested additional subordinates, and their role as repre-
information, data, or material from aca- “Ethicists Mostly Say ‘No’ to New sentatives of their home institutions.
demic colleagues regarding their pub- Technologies” Second, scientists must assume a
lished research reported being turned Ethical principles do set limits on tech- measure of disciplinary responsibil-
down at least once; 28% reported nology, but this is unremarkable. We ity for the promotion, oversight, and
that they had been unable to confirm need limits to be set so that new tech- collective activity of their specialized
published results because they had nologies do not cause harm, violate field of inquiry. Finally, scientists must
been denied access to requested data personal privacy or autonomy, dam- recognize their social responsibility
or materials (Campbell et al., 2002). age a collectively owned natural envi- to science as a public enterprise.
Science’s claim to self-correction and ronment, and so on. Although some Scientists have an obligation, indi-
overall reliability is based on the ability bioethicists may use ethical argu- vidually as well as collectively, to reflect
of researchers to replicate the results ments to resist technology in general, on the ends, not just the means, of
of published studies. Studies can- the majority of biomedical ethics is in scientific work (Kitcher, 2004). Ethical
not be replicated if scientists will not the service of good science. Many bio- conversation should be part of “normal
share additional data, information, or ethicists are trained in the biological or science” in every laboratory, academic
materials from published studies, and social sciences and have academic center, and corporate office.
upholding such ethical norms is every appointments in medical or life sci- Sometimes that ethical responsi-
scientist’s responsibility. ence departments. The irony of being bility may run counter to the prac-
a bioethicist these days is the possibil- tices of an institution or corporation;
“Ethics Is Arbitrary” ity of being viewed both as a lackey to in those cases, scientific integrity
From stem cells and cloning to pharmaceutical and biotechnological demands that individual scientists
genetic engineering to the sale of interests by the general public and as respond by speaking out, or trying to
organs for transplant, there is no an overly cautious obstructionist by change the corporate culture. In rare
dearth of contentious bioethical the scientific community. cases, it may require refusing to par-
debates. Sometimes the debates Ethicists and scientists should ticipate in a particular project, or in
seem intractable, with all sides con- work hand in hand to assure that sci- extreme cases, resigning.
vinced of the validity of their ethical entific research is done to the high-
position. It is easy to conclude that est ethical standards, and to prepare “The Public Does Not Know
ethics is essentially arbitrary. Empiri- the public for reception of scientific What It Wants”
cal evidence can provide support for innovation. The cloning of Dolly has The public, in general, is not sci-
ethical conditions, but it cannot ulti- become the exemplar of the failure entifically sophisticated. Yet some-
mately adjudicate between them. to prepare the public for a scientific how the public has managed to

1024  Cell 125, June 16, 2006 ©2006 Elsevier Inc.

negotiate its way to a consensus institutions. They asked them to con- human embryonic stem cell research.
on a variety of scientific issues. sider their practices and rationales Some countries have banned it alto-
Despite the initial reaction to the for limiting scientific inquiry or dis- gether, others have severely regu-
cloning of Dolly, people eventually semination. Respondents reported lated it, and still others have actively
settled into a consistent and stable that knowledge may be forbidden promoted it. With such variation, a
belief that animal cloning is basi- because the route to obtaining that common argument for pursuing con-
cally acceptable, whereas human knowledge is unethical—certain troversial science is its inevitability; if
reproductive cloning is not. Society types of human experimentation we don’t pursue this line of research,
invests scientists with public trust simply may not be carried out, for then someone else will. But is that
and privilege, granting them access example. Some knowledge may argument, even if true, a justification
to funds, materials, public institu- be forbidden because the means for pursuing a line of research that a
tions, and even their bodies as sub- to knowledge violates religious or scientist otherwise judges to be ethi-
jects for research. In return, society moral constraints, as some claim cally questionable?
retains a right to set certain limits about human embryonic stem cell The argument is ultimately an eco-
on the kind of scientific research research. nomic, not an ethical one. If science
that it believes is permissible. Kempner and colleagues were is to maintain its ethical standards,
If science serves the collective most surprised, however, by the and if scientists want to be trusted
good, then it must contribute its power of informal means of limit- by a wary public, ethical guidelines
unique perspective to the moral ing scientific inquiry. Researchers must be developed and adhered to,
debates of the day. Scientists are sometimes attacked after pub- even when they cause some eco-
should be active participants in that lication of their research—as were nomic hardship. The primary ethical
cultural conversation, as they are famous controversial figures such responsibility is to one’s own moral
both citizens with a right to make as Kinsey, Milgram, and Herrnstein standing.
claims about the common good and and Murray—which may dissuade
experts in the topics in question. In others from pursuing similar lines of Conclusion
that sense, science’s biggest failure research. In the survey, some par- Science has become one of the
lies in its lack of engagement with ticipants cited the threat of social most powerful and pervasive forces
the public. One study of geneticists sanctions as deterring certain types for change in modern society. As
(Mathews et al., 2005) found that of research, whereas others reported the professionals at its helm, scien-
although most thought that scientists that there were unspoken rules of tists have a unique responsibility to
should be more actively involved in their scientific community regarding shepherd that change with careful
public outreach and science policy, which research to pursue. ethical scrutiny of their own behavior
many felt ill-equipped themselves Most would agree that there is and thoughtful advocacy of scientific
and unsupported by their peers and scientific research that is inher- research. If scientists find reasons
institutions in assuming this respon- ently unethical and ought not to be not to do so, the public will find ways
sibility. Scientists who frequently pursued. However, there is a more to do it for them, and the results may
engage the public have often been nuanced ethical question: is the not always be in the best interests of
suspect in the eyes of their peers, pursuit of all scientific knowledge science or society.
yet it is precisely that kind of out- equally worthy? That question must
reach that will most benefit the sci- be asked every time we allocate References
entific enterprise. funds to certain scientific goals
and not to others. In that sense, an Campbell, E.G., Clarridge, B.R., Gokhale,
M., Birenbaum, L., Hilgartner, S., Holtzman,
“Knowledge Is Intrinsically Good” ethical sensibility is part of the very N.A., and Blumenthal, D. (2002). JAMA 287,
A working assumption of modern funding structures that drive science 473–480.
science is that the generation of in certain directions in technological
Chadwick, R. (2005). Interdiscip. Sci. Rev. 30,
knowledge is its own justification. societies. 247–256.
But is all knowledge neutral? Is there What kinds of research should we
any piece of information so poten- prioritize? It is there that the ethical Dreifus, C. (2006). At Harvard’s stem cell cen-
ter, the barriers run deep and wide. The New
tially disturbing or destructive that dialog among scientists, ethicists, York Times, January 24, F2.
we should not pursue it? Some sci- and the public can be most fruitful.
entists may say that all knowledge is Kempner, J., Perlis, C.S., and Merz, J.F.
(2005). Science 307, 854.
fair game. Yet there are precedents “If I Don’t Do It, Someone Else Will”
for the idea that there is forbid- Biotechnology has become global, Kitcher, P. (2004). Bioscience 54, 331–336.
den knowledge. Kempner and col- but different societies do not always
Mathews, D., Kalfoglou, A., and Hudson, K.
leagues (2005) interviewed about 40 agree on the same ethical standards. (2005). Am. J. Med. Genet. 137A, 161–169.
scientists in a variety of disciplines— Although there is almost universal
Pincock, S. (2006). The Scientist. Scientists
including cell and molecular biology, agreement to ban human reproduc-
praise new UK ethics code. Published online
neuroscience, and genetics —from a tive cloning, for example, there is January 10, 2006. http://www.the-scientist.
number of prestigious US academic little international agreement about com/news/display/22930

Cell 125, June 16, 2006 ©2006 Elsevier Inc.  1025

 C O M M E N TA R Y

Should we make a fuss? A case for social

© 2005 Nature Publishing Group http://www.nature.com/naturebiotechnology

responsibility in science
Jon Beckwith & Franklin Huang
If society is to remain in step with new technology, the scientific community needs to be better educated about the
social and ethical implications of its research.

“If they [eugenicists] want to do this sort classes and various ethnic groups. Yet, Morgan, Laissez-faire and denial
of thing, well and good…but I think it is in a private letter, and Botstein at a conference Why do scientists choose not to engage in
just as well for some of us to set a better on the Human Genome Project disavow any those social debates that have important sci-
standard, and not appear as participators need for them, as scientists, to respond to these entific components? When challenged to con-
in the show. I have no desire to make any arguments. sider such activism, scientists often respond:
fuss.” (Thomas Hunt Morgan, 1915) “My role is just to do my science. It is up to the
Why engage the public? politicians to decide how it is used.” This lais-
“People keep asking me why I do not A majority of the early geneticists may have sez-faire attitude is fostered by the education of
rebut The Bell Curve. The answer is considered the claims of eugenicists as poor scientists. In the life sciences, many of us were
because it is so stupid, it is not rebuttable.” science and may have abhorred the steriliza- trained to think of ourselves as working in the
(David Botstein, 1997) tion, miscegenation and immigration restric- ‘ivory tower’ mode—seekers of truth uncon-
tion laws that were passed with support of taminated by the outside world. Few students
Two geneticists, nearly a century apart, react eugenicists. And most geneticists today prob- of science receive as an integral part of their
to critical moments in the interface between ably reject the genetic claims of Herrnstein
genetics and society. Thomas Hunt Morgan, and Murray and the social prescriptions they
arguably the leading geneticist of his day, offer. But few spoke publicly about the flaws in
responds to the claims and activities of the the scientific reasoning and the unwarranted
eugenics movement, which had a profound extension of questionable conclusions from
social influence in the United States1. More genetics into the realm of social policy.
recently, David Botstein, one of the architects Should geneticists have played a role in these
of human genome mapping, comments on the very public controversies? Do scientists have a
book, The Bell Curve, in which authors Richard responsibility to participate in public discus-
Herrnstein and Charles Murray provided sions about the implications of their science?
genetically based arguments for changing social We would argue that there are many cases
policies in areas, such as welfare and education, where scientists should indeed ‘make a fuss.’
policies that parallel those of the eugenicists2. When social harm may result from the misuse
Both Morgan and Botstein are disdainful of and misrepresentation of science, who better to
these uses of genetics by others to argue for the present the criticisms, describe the uncertain-
intellectual and social inferiority of lower social ties or identify the falsehoods than scientists
knowledgeable in the relevant field? Who bet-
ter to point out, for example, that research and
Jon Beckwith is in the Department of conclusions in the study of human behavior
Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, Harvard are often influenced by the social attitudes of
Medical School, 200 Longwood Avenue, Boston, researchers? Yet, although the scientists with
Massachusetts 02115, USA and Franklin Huang an interest in influencing social policy often
is in the Division of Hematology/Oncology, go public because of their strong belief in the
Children’s Hospital, Karp Family Research conclusions of the research, scientists who see
Thomas Hunt Morgan, who was on the board of
Laboratories, 1 Blackfan Circle, Boston, the flaws in the research are much less likely the US Eugenics Record Office in 1915, failed
Massachusetts 02115, USA. to confront the issues in a public setting. The to publicly challenge the co-option of genetics to
e-mail: jbeckwith@hms.harvard.edu impact on society is thus skewed. justify public eugenics programs. (AP Photo)

NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY VOLUME 23 NUMBER 12 DECEMBER 2005 1479

 C O M M E N TA R Y

scientific education an analysis of the social States, Europe and elsewhere (including one of science and shapes the impact science will
impact of science and rarely is there a men- of the authors of this piece) began to examine have on society.
tion of social responsibility. We learn of none the social role of their own fields3,4. Geneticists Instead of responding to crises, scientists
of the history of those periods when scientists publicly criticized the faulty arguments of should be prepared by their courses and by
became active in confronting the social conse- psychologist Arthur Jensen about heredity, their mentors for this component of being
quences of their field. race and IQ. Others raised concerns about a scientist. We propose that education at the
Most notably, after atomic bombs were the potential dangers of genetic engineering. graduate level should include the study of the
dropped on Japan, nuclear physicists who Some were active in opposing efforts to water social implications of science and the histori-
participated in the Manhattan Project came down or eliminate the teaching of evolution in cal instances where scientists have spoken out.
© 2005 Nature Publishing Group http://www.nature.com/naturebiotechnology

to question what they had been doing. schools. For a relatively brief period, many in Such courses should be supported by policies at
Highlighted by J. Robert Oppenheimer’s plaint the biological community became active. the academic institutional level. Furthermore,
that “physicists have known sin,” a resistance Thus, a sense of social responsibility in sci- the adoption of social/public service require-
movement arose that influenced the broader ence has emerged from time to time in spite ments of scientists during their graduate study,
community of physicists. These ‘awakened’ sci- of the fact that scientists were not prepared by whether this involves working in developing
entists started the socially concerned “Bulletin their training to think about these issues. Their countries or mentoring high school students in
of the Atomic Scientists” and spoke out, lob- activism was stimulated by crises, such as the the community, may help broaden the perspec-
bied and even went door-to-door seeking a ban use of atomic weapons or the political envi- tives of budding scientists.
on the testing of atomic weapons in the 1950s ronment of the 1960s. These events, not the If a goal of scientific training is to help scien-
and 1960s. education of the scientist, were the ‘educational tists to be more critical thinkers, then preparing
Anthropologists, particularly in the latter moments’ that generated social responsibility them to be engaged in looking critically at the
half of the 20th century, were forced to con- among scientists. social implications of their science can only aid
sider the ethics of their field research because of in achieving that goal.
its obvious impact on the groups they studied. What to do?
Although it may be less obvious to geneticists Waiting for such crises will not do. More sci- 1. Allen, G. Genetics, Eugenics and Class Struggle.
Genetics. 79, 29-45 (1975).
and other biological scientists that the products ence is being conducted today than at any time 2. Botstein, D. in: Plain Talk about the Human Genome
of their field can have profound effects on soci- in the history of the world and its consequences Project, (eds. Smith, E. and Sapp, W). 207–214
(Tuskegee University Press,Tuskegee, AL, 1997).
ety, the impact is no less important. for society are expanding correspondingly. The 3. Beckwith, J. Making Genes, Making Waves: A
The 1960s saw another stirring of the scien- research enterprise both reflects and influ- Social Activist in Science (Harvard University Press,
tific conscience. Initially provoked by the use ences social policy. It is more necessary than Cambridge, MA, 2002).
4. Weiner, C. in Gene Therapy and Ethics (ed. Nordgren,
of science for the development of war tech- ever that scientists be part of the public con- A.) 51–64 (Acta Universitatis Uppsaliensis, Uppsala,
nologies in Vietnam, scientists in the United versation that fosters both an understanding 1999).

1480 VOLUME 23 NUMBER 12 DECEMBER 2005 NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY