International ethical oversight of scientific research?

Question

In the US the ethical questions by the National Science Foundation involve monetary cheating by scientists on NSF grants.

UNESCO and the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies take a deeper view and believe the feet of scientific research should be held to the fire of "true dialogue, based upon respect for commonly shared values and the dignity of each civilization and culture".

Can scientists world-wide be forced to put a rein on their curiosities long enough to have their work evaluated in these ways before proceeding?

Or, alternatively, is it more likely some future catastrophe created by them will result in scientists everywhere being hung from lamp-posts by the angry victims of the unconstrained and unethical pursuits of a few?

European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies

http://ec.europa.eu/european_group_ethics/index_en.htm

Answer 1

Good science is the authority to print money. Use science to discover a better process and you get lots of money.

The hint of good science summons money, and is all some achieve, coming close but lacking the brains or determination to reach the goal. For these poor saps, money is the only reward, so they lurch after it in a desperate attempt to validate their existence.

Government of us is also the government of them, and it must account for them and support them.

For scientists who give it a valiant try but fail, do you wish to deny them funds because they failed? Then you aren't part of a healthy government.

Will others commit fraud for money - especially government money? Duh.

Will scientists who deceive themselves into believing they have captured "lightning in a bottle" end their days crushed beneath the scorn of their folly's devastation? You bet. Has this been the case since science began? Of course!

Oversight of science is mocking when it is at its best. Underfunding of science is a death blow to any society; a condition which grows more strategic each decade.

A good, healthy society makes big messes, then cleans them up. Poor destitute cultures deny any attempt which might get messy because they are weary of the effort and can't take care of themselves.

Start living, twit! Go out and dare to try something novel in your life. It might not be pretty, but at least you'll have lived!

Answer 2

Can scientists world-wide be forced to put a rein on their curiosities long enough to have their work evaluated in these ways before proceeding?

No, but it would help if the USA could join the groups that are involved in such dialogue as described in the link. It would be nice to say to the public: "This approach has been approved and encouraged by an organization that includes people from all these different areas of expertise."

I don't think a future catastrophe created by scientists will result in the scenario you describe, though. Whomever's left after such a disaster will be concentrating on survival, and won't have time to hunt down the ones that were responsible. By the time things are back to livable conditions, those responsible will have either died off or gone into hiding. Being pissed off at that point won't help much.

Those European countries sometimes have their heads on straight.

Answer 3

Who would you have do the evaluating if not other scientists?  If you concede that it takes a scientifically educated person to evaluate what another scientist is researching, how do you decide which set of ethics, the researchers or evaluators, should take precedence?  For example, an aetheist researcher wants the right to research discarded embryo cells and you send a scientist who is christian to evaluate the work.  This will just cause a stand off.  The only way to make these kind of judgements is to let the global population judge by patronizing (buying) the results.