Two important aspects of the relationship between peer review and innovation includes the acceptance of articles for publication in journals and the assessment of applications for grants for the funding of research work. While there are well-known examples of the rejection by journals of first choice of many papers that have radically changed the way we think about the world outside ourselves, such papers do get published eventually, however tortuous the process required. With grant applications the situation differs in that (...) the refusal of a grant necessarily curtails the possible research that may be attempted. Here there are many reasons for conservatism and reservation as to the ability of a grant allocation process based on peer review to deliver truly innovative investigations. Other methods are needed; although such methods need not be applied across the board, they should constitute the methods whereby some 10–20% of the grant monies are assigned. The nomination of prizes for specific accomplishments is one way of achieving innovation although this presumes that investigators or institution already have available the money necessary to effect the innovations; otherwise it is a question of the selection and funding of particular individuals or institutions and requiring them to solve particular problems that are set in the broadest of terms. (shrink)

As a result of a gradual shifting of the resourcing of universities from the public to the private sector, the academic institution has been required to acquire some of its additional funding from industry via partnerships based on research and development. This paper examines this new condition and asks whether the different mission statements or modi operandi of the university vis à vis industry throws up additional ethical issues. While there are conditions where the interactions between industry and the university (...) may be seen to be between partners with some degree of equivalence, many such interactions, lacking this balance, are in danger of generating more concerns. It should also not be forgotten that independent publicly funded research establishments may also play an important role in the production of the innovation and development needed to maintain the strength of an industrial economy. (shrink)

The majority of papers in this special issue were presented at a conference, ‘The Advancement of Science and the Dilemma of Dual Use: Why We Can’t Afford to Fail’ held on 9–10 November 2007. The conference chairman was Andrzej Górski and its patrons were UNESCO and the President of the Polish Academy of Sciences. Three additional papers on the subject of Dual Use have been included in this issue; the authors are T. A. Cavanaugh , J. Forge and D. Koepsall.

Following an examination of the missions of industry and the university there is a comparison of the ‘wish-lists’ of industry and the university. These ‘wish-lists’ have both similarities and differences. Some of the differences are expressed in a further section on the kinds of interactions that neither institution wants from the other. In the canonical university, the culture values features such as openness, individuality and the de-emphasis of monetary matters, whereas in the archetypal industry the prevailing ethos tends towards secrecy, (...) teamwork and financial advancement. When two such cultures are juxtaposed under conditions where the survival of the university is dependent, in part, on receiving funds from industry, there is a danger of an erosion of academic standards as the university becomes more oriented to service the needs of industry as opposed to the development of its students and its independent scholastic and research activities. Industry, however, is in a position to derive benefit from the interaction without incurring an equivalent cost. These issues are discussed and some recommendations are made to improve the ethical nature of the interaction. (shrink)

In these reflections on the recent book by John Ziman entitled ‘Real Science: What it is and what it means’, I have sought to review his main points and carry on the discussion that Ziman seeks to provoke. His approach to this subject arises from what exists on the ground and the way practising scientists view this area. I have taken a wider more abstract view of what is entailed by science than Ziman and have examined the implications of that (...) choice. As we are presently being urged to effect more and more cross and multi-disciplinary activities and research, the boundaries that may be used to set aside that which is scientific are exposed to additional strains that challenge their integrity. The continuation of this discussion into the future is clearly called for; its outcome is less apparent. (shrink)

A report of this meeting is published in this issue: Van Steendam, G., et al. The Budapest Meeting 2005—Intensified Networking on Ethics of Science: The case of Reproductive Cloning, Germline Gene Therapy and Human Dignity, Science and Engineering Ethics 12/4: 731–793.

Those procedures which, at some future date, could constitute the operations resulting in the cloning of a human being are defined as a tool. As humans have been using tools for some two million years, sets of rules or ethics have been devised to make sure that tools are used to promote the maximum benefit and cause the minimum harm. It would, therefore, seem appropriate to consider the human cloning process as one such tool and approach the ethical issues which (...) might govern its use in a manner which has been informed by how we have approached similar instances of new tool development. In this we can be guided by a range of thought experiments and practical considerations. When we combine these two facilities we may conclude that there are some benefits to be gained by the use of the human cloning tool, while there are other aspects of the use of the tool that need to be carefully controlled and regulated. An outline of a pragmatic approach to the initial uses of the tool is described. (shrink)

The material presented at this conference pointed to a new dimension in the prosecution of activities that seek to relieve people of disease. While the simple instrument of the placebo may show those interested in the efficacy of physiologically active chemicals the extent to which the chemical of interest is actually active, the surprising outcome of such studies is that the placebo per se is worthy of more general study. This, when taken further, points to the ways in which mind (...) can influence the matter of the body. Of course, mind itself is an activity of matter, so we may retain the experimental approach that has told us about the world outside ourselves to examine the world that is inside our brains. New techniques and approaches to these once intractable problems are now in train. Where they will lead us we cannot predict, but as with the emergence of all new tools, we have to adopt those ethics that will carry us forward with the expectation that we will maximise benefits and minimise harms. (shrink)

Science and Technology Ethics re-examines the ethics by which we live and asks the question: do we have in place the ethical guidelines through which we can incorporate these developments with the minimum of disruption and disaffection? It assesses the ethical systems in place and proposes new approaches to our scientific and engineering processes and products, our social contacts, biology and informatics, the military industry and our environmental responsibilities. The volume is multidisciplinary and reflects the aim of the book to (...) promote a state of the art assessment of these issues. Science and Technology Ethics is a much-needed discussion of the scientific developments that have major effects on the way we live. It will be of interest to all students of science and technology and all professionals involved with administrating laws in these fields. (shrink)

They may not have happened yet; but they are on the way. Reports, conference talks and exhibitions have provided windows into our possible and probable futures. As our ways of living have changed dramatically over the last 20 or so years, so might we expect even more such changes in the next couple of decades? But what changes might be in the offing and how should we as citizens, students, educators, ethicists and concerned individuals deal with them?Not all of the (...) prospects that are in today’s news will emerge and become consolidated as way-of-life changing mediators. Some of the developments that are on the cards may be difficult to scale-up, produce or manufacture. Others will fall by the wayside because of cost issues, lack of financial backing or poor marketing. And there are always issues of safety, real or imagined, to be dealt with as well as the ethical issues entailed. Also it must be appreciated that there is a category difference between the production of a “tool” and the “ .. (shrink)