Abstract
The activities of the life sciences are essential to provide solutions for the future, for both individuals and society. Society has demanded growing accountability from the scientific community as implications of life science research rise in influence and there are concerns about the credibility, integrity and motives of science. While the scientific community has responded to concerns about its integrity in part by initiating training in research integrity and the responsible conduct of research, this approach is minimal. The scientific community justifies itself by appealing to the ethos of science, claiming academic freedom, self-direction, and self-regulation, but no comprehensive codification of this foundational ethos has been forthcoming. A review of the professional norms of science and a prototype code of ethics for the life sciences provide a framework to spur discussions within the scientific community to define scientific professionalism. A formalization of implicit principles can provide guidance for recognizing divergence from the norms, place these norms within a context that would enhance education of trainees, and provide a framework for discussing externally and internally applied pressures that are influencing the practice of science. The prototype code articulates the goal for life sciences research and the responsibilities associated with the freedom of exploration, the principles for the practice of science, and the virtues of the scientists themselves. The time is ripe for scientific communities to reinvigorate professionalism and define the basis of their social contract. Codifying the basis of the social contract between science and society will sustain public trust in the scientific enterprise.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
ABIM Committee on Evaluation of Clinical Competence. (1995). Project professionalism. Philadelphia, PA: American Board of Internal Medicine. http://www.abim.org/pdf/profess.pdf.
American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. (1998). Code of ethics. Bethesda, MD: American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. http://www.asbmb.org/asbmb/site.nsf/Sub/CodeofEthics?opendocument.
Anderson, M. S., & Louis, K. S. (1994). The graduate student experience and subscription to the norms of science. Research in Higher Education, 35, 273–299.
Anderson, M. S. (2000). Normative orientations of university faculty and doctoral students. Science and Engineering Ethics, 6, 443–461. Discussion 463–465.
Bayles, M. D. (1981). Professional ethics. Belmont: Wadsworth Pub. Co.
Cohen, J. J. (2001). Trust us to make a difference: Ensuring public confidence in the integrity of clinical research. Academic Medicine, 76, 209–214.
Council Committee on Professional Relations. (1994). The chemist’s code of conduct. The American Chemical Society. http://www.chemistry.org/portal/a/c/s/1/acsdisplay.html?DOC=membership%5Cconduct.html.
Cournand, A. (1977). The code of the scientist and its relationship to ethics. Science 198, 699–705.
Edsall, J. T. (1975). Scientific freedom and responsibility. Washington, DC: AAAS Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility, American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Frankel, M. S. (1994). Ethics in research: Current issues for dental researchers and their professional society. Journal of Dental Research, 73, 1759–1765.
Frankel, M. S. (2000). Scientific societies as sentinels of responsible research conduct. Proceedings Society of Experimental Biology and Medicine, 224, 216–219.
Frankel, M. S., & Bird, S. J. (2003). The role of scientific societies in promoting research integrity. Science and Engineering Ethics, 9, 139–140.
Heitman, E. (2000). Ethical values in the education of biomedical researchers. Hastings Center Report, 30, S40–S44.
Korenman, S. G., Berk, R., Wenger, N. S., & Lew, V. (1998). Evaluation of the research norms of scientists and administrators responsible for academic research integrity. Journal of American Medical Association, 279, 41–47.
McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1993). Academic dishonesty: Honor codes and other contextual influences. Journal of Higher Education, 64, 522–538.
Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mitroff, I. (1974). Norms and counter-norms in a select group of the Apollo moon scientists: A case study of the ambivalence of scientists. American Sociological Review, 39, 579–595.
National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity. (2006). Considerations in developing a code of conduct for dual use research in the life sciences. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health. http://www.biosecurityboard.gov/pdf/NSABB%20Draft%20Guidance%20Documents.pdf.
Prpic, K. (1998). Science ethics: A study of eminent scientists’ professional values. Scientometrics, 43, 269–298.
Reiser, S. J., & Bulger, R. E. (1997). The social responsibilities of biological scientists. Science and Engineering Ethics, 3, 137–143.
Shrader-Frechette, K. (1994). Ethics of scientific research. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Lanham.
Somerville, M. A., & Atlas, R. M. (2005). Ethics: A weapon to counter bioterrorism. Science, 307, 1881–1882.
The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The belmont report. Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.htm.
Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals. (1949). The nuremberg code. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/references/nurcode.htm.
US Office of Research Integrity. (2000). The role and activities of scientific societies in promoting research integrity. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/projects/report.pdf.
Wenger, N. S., Korenman, S. G., Berk, R., & Berry, S. (1997). The ethics of scientific research: An analysis of focus groups of scientists and institutional representatives. Journal of Investigational Medicine, 45, 371–380.
World Medical Association. (1964). Declaration of Helsinki. Finland, Helsinki: World Medical Association.
World Medical Association. (2000). Declaration of Helsinki. Finland, Helsinki: World Medical Association.
Acknowledgements
I thank Dr. Nigel M. de S. Cameron whose class assignment required his bioethics students to compare the ethical codes in their profession to the Hippocratic tradition which birthed this prototype. I thank Dr. David Cook for his critical review and suggestions to strengthen the philosophical arguments. I thank the following individuals for reviewing the prototype code and offering suggestions for refining its concepts and organization: Linda K. Bevington, Drs. Nigel M. de S. Cameron, David Cook, William P. Cheshire Jr., Frederic R. Fairfield, David B. Fletcher, Gregory A. Hawkins, C. Christopher Hook, Henk Jochemsen, John F. Kilner, Howard S. Kruth, David A. Prentice, Jarrett W. Richardson, Joyce A. Shelton, Richard W. St. Clair, Jeanne M. Wallace, and Mark C. Willingham. This work was partially funded by The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jones, N. A code of ethics for the life sciences. SCI ENG ETHICS 13, 25–43 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-006-0007-x
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-006-0007-x