On the Morality of Science

[CrisisPapers]

| Ernest Partridge |

Why do the Busheviks hate science? Scientists insist upon presenting evidence and proven facts, regardless of what the Busheviks would prefer to hear. And so, for Bush's team, political dogma, special interests and public relations trump science. For example, when, in October 2002, an alarming draft summary of research in climate change arrived at the White House, staffer Phillip Cooney, a former lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute with no scientific training, "revised" the report, deleting whole paragraphs and adding qualifications and doubts nowhere expressed by the scientific authors of the draft.

This is common practice in Bush's White House, which routinely interferes with, alters, and even suppresses scientific reports from the FDA, the EPA, NOAA, and other federal agencies. Scientists, it seems, belong to the detested "reality-based community." Rather than heed the scientists, the Busheviks prefer to "create (their) own realities." (Ron Suskind: "Without a Doubt," The New York Times).

Nevertheless, science provides the most accurate and reliable account of nature, and nature is indifferent to political dogmas and agendas. As Richard Feynmann concluded in his dissenting opinion in the Challenger Commission Report: "... reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature can not be fooled."

Science is accurate, reliable and enduring because it is, at its foundation, a highly moral enterprise -- a claim that might surprise many, including scientists.

"Scientific morality" is widely regarded as an oxymoron, since it is commonly believed that science is "value neutral." This belief embraces a pernicious half-truth. The logic of science stipulates that the data, laws, hypotheses and theories of science exclude evaluative terms and concepts, and that the vocabulary of science be exclusively empirical and formal. There are no "oughts," no "goods and bads," no "rights and wrongs." (The fact that social sciences deal with values descriptively, is only an apparent violation of this rule). Capitalist and communist missiles are subject to the same laws of trajectory. The same laws of physiology apply to the physician who heals, and the murderer who poisons. The "value-free" status of scientific vocabulary and assertion is the "truthful half" of the belief that science is "value free."

But as an activity, science is steeped in evaluation, for the methodology that yields these "value-free" statements, requires a discipline and a commitment that to merits the name of "morality." Thus the advancement of science is characterized by behavior that can only be described as "virtuous," and the corruption of science as moral weakness. In other words, the activity of science (that is to say, of science as a human institution) is highly involved with values.

Consider an example: When Gregor Mendel published his studies of the genetic properties of sweet peas, he gave a scrupulously factual account. Moreover, his failures and unanswered questions were reported alongside his verified hypotheses. Had Mendel not been impeccably honest, humble and open with his work, his reports thereof would have been, scientifically speaking, far less valuable. In short, the moral quality of the researcher gave explicit (non-moral) value to his findings. Yet Mendel's scientific papers themselves have not a bit of moral evaluation within them: no prescriptions, no exhortations, no "shoulds" or "oughts" -- only the straightforward exposition of observations and hypotheses. The accounts were value-free; but the conditions required to produce these documents and to give them scientific importance were profoundly moral. In contrast, consider the fraudulent Soviet agronomist, Trofim Lysenko, who displayed neither honesty, candor, tolerance or modesty. Because of these very failings, his work was scientifically worthless. Once more: the primary findings of science, and the language that reports it, are value free, but the conditions that permit scientific work and the attitudes of the scientists toward their work, are deeply involved in morality.

In his little book, Science and Human Values, Jacob Bronowski gives a masterful presentation of the moral preconditions of science. The fundamental moral premise, says Bronowski, is "the habit of truth": the collective decision by the body of science that "We ought to act in such a way that what is true can be verified to be so." This habit, this decision, gives a moral tone to the entire scientific enterprise. Bronowski continues:

By the worldly standards of public life, all scholars in their work are of course oddly virtuous. They do not make wild claims, they do not cheat, they do not try to persuade at any cost, they appeal neither to prejudice or to authority, they are often frank about their ignorance, their disputes are fairly decorous, they do not confuse what is being argued with race, politics, sex or age, they listen patiently to the young and to the old who both know everything. These are the general virtues of scholarship, and they are peculiarly the virtues of science. Individually, scientists no doubt have human weaknesses... But in a world in which state and dogma seem always either to threaten or to cajole, the body of scientists is trained to avoid and organized to resist every form of persuasion but the fact. A scientist who breaks this rule, as Lysenko has done, is ignored...

The values of science derive neither from the virtues of its members, nor from the finger-wagging codes of conduct by which every profession reminds itself to be good. They have grown out of the practice of science, because they are the inescapable conditions for its practice.

And this is but the beginning. For if truth claims are to be freely tested by the community of scientists, then this community must encourage and protect independence and originality, and it must tolerate dissent.

Science and scholarship are engaged in a constant struggle to replace persuasion with demonstration -- the distinction is crucial to understanding the discipline and morality of science.

Persuasion, a psychological activity, is the arena in which propagandists, advertisers, politicians and preachers perform their stunts. To the "persuader," the "conclusion" (i.e. what he is trying to get others to believe: "the message," "the gospel," "the sale") is not open to question. His task is to find the means to get the persuadee (i.e., voter, buyer, "sucker") to believe the message. Whatever psychological means accomplishes this goal is fair game. When the "persuader" and the "persuadee" are one and the same, this is called "rationalization".

Demonstration (or "argumentation" or "proof"), a logical activity, is the objective of the scholar and scientist. Therein, hard evidence and valid methodology is sought, and the conclusion is unknown or in doubt. However discomforting the resulting conclusions might be, "demonstration" has evolved as the best "proven" means of arriving at the truth -- or more precisely, at whatever assurance of truth the evidence will allow. "Demonstration" is exemplified in scientific method (in particular, through freedom of inquiry, replicability of experimentation, publicly attainable data, etc.), in legal rules of evidence, and in the rules of inference of formal logic.

A scientist or a scholar is an individual who has determined, as much as humanly possible, to be (psychologically) persuaded only by (logical) demonstration.

The temptation to resort to persuasion to the detriment of demonstration is universal in mankind and conspicuous among political regressives (who call themselves "conservatives"). But the ability to resist this temptation is variable. Thus science has been devised to ensure the highest humanly attainable degree of non-subjective demonstration. (See my "Is Science Just Another Dogma?"). Much of the strength and endurance of science derives from in its social nature, and the severe sanctions that are entailed therein. Thus the scientist who claims a discovery must tell his colleagues how he arrived at his knowledge, and then offer it for independent validation, at any suitable time and place, by his peers. If this validation fails, the "discovery" is determined to be bogus. If the failure is due to carelessness, the investigator is subject to ridicule. (This was apparently the case with Fleishman and Pons' claim to have discovered "cold fusion.") If it is due to fraud (i.e., "cooking the data"), as was the case with Lysenko and Dawson (the "discoverer" of Piltdown Man), the investigator is liable to be exposed, whereupon the scientist loses his reputation and credibility -- which is to say, his profession. Due to its social nature, the institution of scientific inquiry is more than the sum of all scientists that participate therein.

To reiterate: the activity of science fosters such moral virtues as tolerance, mutual respect, discipline, modesty, impartiality, non-manipulation, and, above all, what Bronowski calls "the habit of truth." That is to say, in the pursuit of his or her profession, the scientist forgoes "easy" gratification through a steadfast allegiance to "truth," and the implicit willingness to acknowledge a failure to find the truth -- both of these, abstract moral principles. The scientist endures such morally virtuous sacrifice and constraint, because the discipline requires it, and the cost of violation is severe: lying and cheating in the laboratory are fruitless iniquities, since, by the nature of the enterprise, they are likely to be uncovered.

Yet, to be sure, scientists are capable of morally atrocious behavior. They performed experiments at Auschwitz, and they serve today as psychologists perfecting torture techniques at Gitmo, as apologists for the tobacco and pesticide industries, and some, lavishly funded by the coal and oil industries, deny the existence of global warming.

Scientists are human, and thus vulnerable to all the usual temptations which flesh is heir to.

Still, for the scientist and scholar who chooses to pursue a moral life, the insight and discipline acquired from scientific training and practice offers a significant "boost" to that pursuit.

The "virtues of science" can even lead to saintly behavior. Consider the case of the Russian physicist Andrei Sakharov, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize of 1975. Without question, Sakharov carried his allegiance to truth, and the habit of yielding to principle, beyond his laboratory. In this passage from his great 1968 testament, "Progress, Coexistence and Intellectual Freedom," note how the extension of scientific method to politics and social activism, conveys essential moral qualities and implications:

We regard as 'scientific' a method based on deep analysis of facts, theories, and views, presupposing unprejudiced, unfearing open discussion and conclusions. The complexity and diversity of all the phenomena of modern life, the great possibilities and dangers linked with the scientific-technical revolution and with a number of social tendencies demand precisely such an approach...

Out of his respect for the truth and the institution of scientific inquiry, Sakharov would never hide evidence, whatever the apparent personal advantage. By analogy, in his political dissenting he would not compromise a moral truth, even to save himself. When duty called, that was reason enough. It is this step, from the laboratory to practical life, that characterizes the saintly scientist. Saintly behavior is manifest when intellectual discipline of the laboratory, the willingness to accept evidence and follow the clear logical implications of perceived and discovered truth, is applied to personal life, even at the cost of personal sacrifice, and even when one has clear opportunities to "get away" with a distortion or denial of the truth and a compromise of one's principles.

Duty calls upon the scientist today, in and out of government, to stand strong against the superstition and corporate greed that is hacking at the roots of scientific inquiry, and for those in government to step forth and expose the corruption and censorship of scientific research that is rampant in the Bush Administration. There is no guarantee that scientific advancement will continue forever -- not, at least, in the United States. Like all valuable institutions, it must be defended, more so today. For if science is subverted in this country, it will surely flourish abroad in countries that will, for that very reason, supplant us.

It is time, in short, for the scientists to apply the morality inherent in the activity of science to our schools, our politics, and our culture, lest that activity, and its moral advantages, be lost to us.

-- EP

[Demeter]

1. The Best Explanation of Scientific Training and Discipline Ever Written

Clarified things for this engineer.

[Tekla West]

2. taught history of science

for over a decade at a 'Science and Technology' university, couldn't have said it better. Everyone should read this.

[truedelphi]

3. But it is not only the Bush regime that seeks to alter science

The corporations' need to allow for profit strikes an equal blow - on the one hand we have religious zealots telling us that the earth is only 6,000 years old, and on the other we have the corporations stacking the FDA deck against the health of Americans - fortunately our pets took a serious blow recently - this may make us wake up - though not in time for those already lost to things like NutraSweet, Thimeresol, MSG, pesticides, etc.

[FloridaJudy]

4. Very well put

This should be required reading for all Bushites.

Is there any way to reduce it to a third grade reading level first?

[RestoreGore]

5. Science is the pursuit of truth

With no predispositions or prejudices. What could be more moral or even Democratic than that? Thank you for this very well written essay.

[TheBaldyMan]

6. I fundamentally disagree with your assertion that science is a moral enterprise.

The enterprise of scientific enquiry must adhere to the scientific method. Choosing to do so enables the claim to be within the remit of science, choosing to live by the rule is a moral choice but the scientific production is assuredly value neutral.

Rocket trajectories and biochemistry yield their mysteries to the adherence to scientific method for every party that abides by the rules, if another party fabricates the outcome that conclusion ceases to have any claim to be called science.

To paraphrase Dr. Bronowski and going even further I'd assert "We necessarily act in such a way that what is true can be verified to be so", this is the foundation of all hypotheses.

Scientific enquiry does protect independance and values originality. Dissent in the form of doubt is indispensible, even if only playing Devil's Advocate to examine the validity of a well established theory.

I say it is naive to assume that science engenders a moral outlook, eugenics being the grossest example of a field of science that was, in it's day, taken very seriously indeed. Science is neutral by its very nature, it is up to all of us to place the findings in a moral and ethical framework and if need be a legal framework. Science has the capacity to inform us but it is ultimately our choice.

Science is as free of vice as it is of virtue.

[Ernest Partridge]

7. The Author Replies:

With all due respect, I would suggest that
"TheBaldyMan" gives himself away with the assertion
that "choosing to live by the rule is a moral
choice..."

But what is that "rule"?  Scientific method?  Very
well.  So in order to "live by the rule," one must
be honest, tolerant, humble, etc.  What are these, if not
moral virtues?  Are they any less so if, as Brownowski says,
they are "the  inescapable conditions for [the] practice
[of science]?"

That is the essence of what Bronowski (and I) wish to assert.

In response to the very generous comments above, I must insist
that the better statement is by Bronowski, from whom I adapted
these ideas.  I suspect that his book, "Science and Human
Values," is no longer in print.  If so, that's a pity.

As I should have mentioned in the essay, this is an adaptation
from my book in progress, "Conscience of a
Progressive" (Chapter 21 --
www.igc.org/gadfly/progressive/^toc.htm).  Permission is
hereby granted to copy and distribute (e.g., for educational
purposes), with the usual stipulation that author and source
be included.  The work is copyrighted as protection against
plagiarism -- not that this will deter some unscrupulous
college students.  Remember, I was once a university
professor.

[truedelphi]

8. Can I point out that there have been great scientists who were anything but humble

Einstein seems to have demonstrated humility, but many others inside the scientific community have been arrogant.

The apple falls off the tree - not knowing Newton personally, I can't say whether he was humble or not - but what was important was his investigation into establishing the science behind a force now called gravity.

As long as arrogance or the willingness to be corrupted does not lead a scientist away from the scientific method, all is well.

But devotion to the scientific method gets harder and harder each day, as more and more corporations take over university laboratories, and as payouts to those who follow "Christian" dictates brings forth much mis-teaching.

[TheBaldyMan]

9. If I may advance a counter example of an immoral and unethical scientist

Edward Teller worked on the Los Alamos project and later became infamous as the 'Father of the Neutron Bomb'.

While designing weapons of mass destruction he had to have intellectual honesty to analyse the data and enough humility to recognise when he was in technical error. These qualities are essential to scientific pursuits, while adequate for the task they are not inherently moral or ethical. Andrei Sakharov was acting in a moral and ethical manner not because he chose to transfer both those scientific necessities to his public life although it could be argued it helped inform the stance he took. Rigorous and critical thought may have utility but are by no means all encompassing, scientific methodology can rationalise the ethics and morals but are perhaps not the fount.

I suppose when I used the phrase 'live by the rule' I am trying to express something of this sense: I can falsify data but I make the conscious choice not to. It is not even a choice if you call yourself a scientist, I suspect it is unthinkable to all scientists. For me, humility came at the realisation of how little I know or can ever know - a lifetime of study and inquiry and I will have barely scratched the surface of that immense body of knowledge. Sadly toleration is neither a consequence nor a pre-requisite to scientific pursuits, admittedly it eases the conduct of scientific discourse but there are a great many examples of advances achieved in secret and in parallel.

I hate to disagree with both yourself and Bronowski, the alternative does appear to be bleak but the only honest one. However I do come to the moral conclusion that science conducted in that spirit that you and Dr. Bronowski suggest to would be a glorious ideal that all scientists should aspire to. It would be best for scientists to agonise over the complexities of the ethical and moral implications of their work and hopefully bringing as much of their intellectual honesty and humility to bear as possible.

[papau]

10. Well said :-) n/t

n/t

[Ernest Partridge]

11. From the Author again:

In the essay, I wrote:

... scientists are capable of morally atrocious behavior. They performed experiments at Auschwitz, and they serve today as psychologists perfecting torture techniques at Gitmo, as apologists for the tobacco and pesticide industries, and some, lavishly funded by the coal and oil industries, deny the existence of global warming. Scientists are human, and thus vulnerable to all the usual temptations which flesh is heir to.

So where is our disagreement?

Decisions by some scientists to sell out their scientific integrity to the tobacco, pesticide, oil or other industries, are decisions outside of the discipline of science. Such individuals freely choose to be scoundrels, and earn the moral condemnation that goes with it.

Teller, in his extra-scientific political life, behaved atrociously, often making statements that he knew were false but which he believed would persuade the general public. For example, he once said that since the half-life of a certain radioactive substance is such-and-such (I don't remember what), in twice that time, it would be completely harmless.

More of Teller's howlers:

**Teller was the only victim of Three Mile Island (because his outrage at Jane Fonda's behavior, brought on a mild heart attack).

**"No evidence of genetic damage has been found" among the children of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings."

**"We have demonstrated that X-Ray Lasers work." ("Sixty Minutes," CBS, December, 1988. By that time, the project had been effectively abandoned, due to lack of results).

**A "Totally clean" Hydrogen bomb could be developed in "six to seven years." (Teller to President Eisenhower).

**"A one megaton bomb, while 70 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb, produces equal damage over only about four times the distance." Misleading. Assuming this is an accurate distance (which I don't), this means that the damaged area is sixteen times as great. ( According to seventh grade math, the area of a circle is the function of the square of the radius: A= pi x radius squared ).

**And finally, "among the Presidents with whom I've , I think Reagan is ... the best intellectually."

For more Teller atrocities, see my unpublished "Sakharov and Teller: Two Ethical Profiles," (where you will also find the source of my DU essay). http://www.igc.org/gadflypapers/sakharov.htm .

Ernest Partridge

[TheBaldyMan]

13. our disagreement is whether science is inherently moral or not

The human experimentation conducted by the Third Reich on hypothermia while morally repulsive was valid science. The data collected is still the basis used by RAF Air-Sea Rescue for figuring how long you have to live if you ditched in a helicopter in the North Sea.

The psychologists working at Guantanamo may perform collection of data but this implies that they have control groups and monitoring of existing practices. This data might support the hypothesis that statements gathered under torture are so unreliable that those statements have no credibility. Perhaps they are consciously avoiding that particular hypothesis arguing towards a desired conclusion rather than dispassionate collection and analysis of the data. If this is the case it should not survive peer review and would not survive public scrutiny as the error was exposed. Any evasion of the process means that this could not be classed as science. Just as with human experimentation the data may be impartial and scientifically valid, all the data gathered has to be judged within those narrow confines of error or validity.

There is no scientific imperative to act in an ethical or moral manner. The psychologists do have a moral imperative to act humanely.

All investigators have a scientific imperative to analyse the data gathered impartially even if the conclusion is not the one that their paymasters have instructed them to find. To act in any other way is not science, it is fabrication. This is why "sceptics" well funded by interested lobbies are not producing science, they are sophists paid to confuse those innocent of what the scientific method involves.

To summarise, science is inherently neutral. Apologists are not producing science.

[truedelphi]

14. And just what was wrong with Rreagan intellectually?

So many years with Bush the Lesser, and Reagan now seems like a
genius - He could speak coherently - he could understand the vastness of undertaking a project.

He had advisors - not just his "gut" instincts.

And much of his cognitive inabilities - such as his falling asleep at meetings could probably be blamed on the aftermath of lung damage brought about by Hinckley.

Posting this about the Reagan-W differences scares me.

[TheBaldyMan]

15. the press corp stopped fact checking Ronnie's statemenrts

it was getting too embarrassing continually pointing out that he was deluded to the extent he was.

A couple off the top of my head:

Trees cause more pollution than automobiles.

Pointing out to the survivors of the holocaust that he knew it happened because he had seen the newsreels at the time (well if it was in the movies it must be true).

The list of gaffes is very long and highlights that he was a dunderhead who was lost without a script.

[eridani]

12. Of all of the stories that humans have come up with about how the universe works--

--science is the only one that is self-checking.

[Karenina]

16. Kick!

:kick: