E-Letter responses to:

p-forum: Margaret A. Somerville and Ronald M. Atlas ETHICS: Ethics: A Weapon to Counter Bioterrorism Science 2005; 307: 1881-1882 [Summary] [Full text] [PDF]

E-Letters: Submit a response to this article

Published E-Letter responses:

Ethical shortcomings

Greg A Harris, none   (24 May 2005)

Ethics in Science: Proposed Code Does Not Guide Scientists

Richard E Ashcroft   (21 April 2005)

Ethical shortcomings 24 May 2005
Greg A Harris, retired none, none Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Ethical shortcomings	All a system of controls based on ethics takes to break down is one person who is unethical by intent or error. Ethics must be considered one small piece of an overall system of controls.
Ethics in Science: Proposed Code Does Not Guide Scientists 21 April 2005
Richard E Ashcroft, Reader in Biomedical Ethics Imperial College London Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Ethics in Science: Proposed Code Does Not Guide Scientists	Somerville and Atlas argue, rightly, for greater consideration of ethics in the practice and training of life scientists, but the code they propose is confused in conception and weak in content. The authors concentrate on bioweapons and biosafety. Passing over the question of whether these are the only, or even the main, moral questions facing the life sciences today, does their code clarify their main concerns? Three main questions present themselves. Somerville and Atlas attempt to secure an extension of Hippocratic principles in medical ethics to the sciences, through an appeal to a pact with society made by science and scientists. Scientists are moral beings first and scientists second, but the question of whether there is a morality of science itself is a very open question. Morality is intrinsic to the doctor-patient relationship, but it is not clear who the analogue of the patient is in science or for scientists. Second, the function of a code is to prescribe, not to encourage debate. The code given is ambiguous here, and gives particularly confusing answers on the "dual use" issue. Principle 5 is a "need to know" principle, but gives no account of what this "need" is or who can have it. In combination with principle 3, it might imply that everyone has a need to know - or that only reputable scientists or public officials do. To make prescriptions where there is no agreement on their justification or scope makes matters worse, not better. Third, the general issue of whether there are questions science should not ask or pursue - of whether there are moral limits to curiosity - is ducked. Aside from the issue of harming research subjects, which is agreed to be wrong, the authors merely allude to deep differences in values and the need for debate. Somerville and Atlas do a great service in raising the need for a code, but I conclude that the code offered is neither useful nor authoritative.