IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - Summer 2013 - 55

case, and the fabrication of research
results on organic semiconductors by physicist Hendrik Schön at
Bell Labs in the late 1990s kept the
topic of fraud and misconduct in
the news and before the scientific
community [14]-[16].
The third and most recent edition of On Being a Scientist (2009)
[19] carries on this tradition of
prioritizing the ethical conduct
of research over its social consequences. In fact, the booklet
de-emphasizes this type of social
responsibility, as compared with
the previous edition.7 The booklet's Introduction lists the duty "to
act in ways that serve the public"
as one of three main obligations
of the scientist - the first two are
obligations to other researchers and
to oneself. It also says that science
directly affects the health and wellbeing of individuals and is used to
make policy on such social issues
as climate change and stem-cell
research. But the duties to society
as a whole merit only one section out of the 12 topical sections,
"The researcher in Society" (see
Table II).8 The first page of this
short section describes the duties
of the researcher to the public, the
second page presents a historical
case [19, pp. 29-43, 48-49] .
That case, however, is not about
protecting the public's health and
safety, which is the first priority in
codes of engineering ethics. rather,
the case is about the researcher's
duties in playing a public role as
7

For example, the section on the scientist in society in the first and second editions of the booklet says that scientists conducting basic research
"need to be aware that their work can ultimately
have a great impact on society" and give examples of the research on nuclear fission and recombinant DNA (the first edition says "ultimately
may have.") In contrast, the third edition says
"researchers also have a responsibility to reflect
on how their work and the knowledge they are
generating might be used in the broader society."
Compare [17] with [18] and [19]. On the other
hand, the third edition [19] presents the historical
case on Agent Orange for this section, discussed
below, whereas the first and second editions do
not provide a case.

Table II
Topics Covered in On Being a Scientist [19]

Advising and Mentoring
The Treatment of Data
Mistakes and Negligence
Research Misconduct
Responses to Suspected Violations of Professional Standards
Human Participants and Animal Subjects in Research
Laboratory Safety in Research
Sharing of Research Results
Authorship and the Allocation of Grants
Intellectual Property
Competing Interests, Commitments, and Values
The Researcher in Society
Source: [19, pp. xvii-xviii].

a scientist. In this historical case,
Arthur Galston, a graduate student in the early 1940s, found that
a synthetic chemical enabled crops
to grow in colder climates. After
the war, he learned that military
researchers had turned his work
into the defoliant Agent Orange,
which was sprayed on forests during the Vietnam war. At a meeting
of the American Society of Plant
Physiologists held in 1966, Galston
testified about the long-term toxic
effects of Agent Orange. He sent
a copy of his report to President
Lyndon Johnson and later met with
President richard Nixon's science
adviser, who recommended in 1970
that the spraying of Agent Orange
be stopped. The case concludes
by quoting Galston that he used
to think a scientist could simply
refuse to work on a project that had
risky health effects, but it wasn't
that simple. "The only recourse,"
concluded Galston, "is for a scientist to remain involved with it [the
project] to the end" [19, p. 49].
It's a good case study, but the
general discussion accompanying
it gives a mixed message. On Being
a Scientist states that researchers
8
See [19, p. 3], their emphasis. One could argue that the duty to protect human subjects of
research is a social concern and thus a social
responsibility.

IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE

SuMMEr 2013

"have a professional obligation to
perform research and present the
results of that research as objectively and as accurately as possible." Yet when they become public
advocates about science, their colleagues and the public may view
them as being "biased." Nevertheless, they have the "right to express
their convictions and work for
social change, and these activities
need not undercut a rigorous commitment to objectivity in research."
This section tends to reinforce the
sharp boundary drawn between
science and politics, which historians and sociologists of science
have questioned for some time.
The implication is that objective
research will always lead to good
results, whereas advocacy is always
suspect and has to be justified.9
The section ends by saying that
the "values on which science is
based - including honesty, fairness,
collegiality, and openness - serve
as guides to action in everyday life
as well as in research. These values
have helped produce a scientific
enterprise of unparalleled usefulness, productivity, and creativity.
So long as these values are honored, science - and the society it
serves - will prosper" [19, p. 48].
9

[19, p. 48]. On the difficulty of separating politics from science, see [20].

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - Summer 2013