PPT Ethics - Chemistry

**Overview** Perhaps more than ever, chemical know-how is in demand for developing solutions to many global issues, including the protection of the natural environment, healthcare, nutrition for a growing world population, water treatment, energy production, waste treatment, recycling, and clean-up...

**Overview** Perhaps more than ever, chemical know-how is in demand for developing solutions to many global issues, including the protection of the natural environment, healthcare, nutrition for a growing world population, water treatment, energy production, waste treatment, recycling, and clean-up of environmental damage by former generations. Rather than just doing their isolated lab work, chemists are expected to engage with other disciplines and with society at large to work together on managing these issues. Of course, real-life solutions are never as simple as those for crossword puzzles. They always involve various advantages and disadvantages, improvements and drawbacks, and opportunities and risks to be discussed and balanced against each other. Thereby, chemists are inevitably involved in disputes about values. They would badly fail if they were not prepared to reflect on the values, develop and analyze moral and political arguments, build moral judgments, and perform responsible actions, all of which belong to the domain of ethics. For many years, national and international organizations, such as UNESCO's World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST), have therefore recommended mandatory courses of ethics for all university students of science and engineering. Moreover, funding agencies and corporate associations increasingly require or assume that scientists are familiar with ethical issues, such as the European Responsible Research and Innovation program and the Corporate Social Responsibility agenda. While the necessary courses have been established in numerous countries and for various student groups, chemistry is still lagging behind, despite the particular importance to the discipline. One reason, or excuse, is the lack of appropriate course materials, because ethics of chemistry does hardly exist in academia, unlike, for instance, ethics of medicine, biology, computer science, engineering, and so on. If a scientist fabricates data, wrongly assumes authorship of something that some colleagues have achieved before, or if senior scientists put their name first (or last, depending on the customs of the discipline) on the publication of work mostly done by junior scientists, or if someone denigrates the public image of science, the scientific community is usually upset. There is no question that all that is bad behavior. However, does it really concern general ethics? While it is, in any regard, morally wrong to betray somebody else, like your colleagues and the general public with fabricated results, it is not so clear if the other issues scientists are usually concerned with are of ethical relevance. After all, lobbying for the image of one's profession is not an ethical issue but in the self-interest of the discipline, usually at the expense of other disciplines, nor is the question of who deserves most credit for a scientific achievement. Indeed most other societal fields do not care about intellectual priority claims of, say, business ideas, as long as there is no legal protection. And if they do so, like in art, copying the style of others is considered poor art rather than moral failure. Many issues that scientists sometimes call 'ethical issues' are actually violations of methodological or epistemic norms There are a wealth of methodological rules in science proposing, for instance, how to produce and interpret data correctly, how to publish and review scientific results, and so on. These so-called 'best practice' rules ensure that results are reproducible by anyone else, such that the scientific community can build further research on them. Any violation could harm scientific progress when others credulously rely on these results. Of course, they are upset then because they have wasted time and efforts, and because the scientific quest for knowledge was misguided. However, it depends on the specific circumstances whether such violation of methodological norms additionally violates ethical norms. There is a double meaning of 'ethics' as there is a double meaning of 'chemistry', like of any other science in the English language. In the vulgar meaning, ethics' just means the behavioral rules of a group, such as 'chemistry' means the regular behavior of molecules. In this sense, ethics in chemistry' describes the behavior of chemists and what they think one ought to do, which largely covers the aforementioned methodological norms. In the academic meaning, however, ethics' is that branch of philosophy that deals with moral values, ideally putting it on general principles that are valid for anyone at any time. A chemical example may illustrate the difference: there is a 'chemistry' of two particular insects interacting chemically (subject matter level, the actual behavior of insects) and there is the academic field of pheromone chemistry that studies the chemical interactions between insects by various molecules (epistemic level, scientific knowledge about the insect behavior). Like academic chemistry studying substances and molecules, ethics studies moral values, norms, and judgments. Thus, ethics is not the behavior, but the study of the behavior. However, unlike science that aims at the perfect description, prediction, and explanation of its subject matter, ethical studies aim at normative ideas of what is morally right or wrong. These studies can be very general and abstract, similar to theoretical chemistry, or applied to particular fields of human activity, such as in ethics of chemistry. Moral values are general goals or goods that are morally valued and recommended to strive for or to support (as, for instance, justice, well-being, or human rights). If these values additionally meet ethical requirements detailed below, they are ethical values. Moral norms are both obligations to strive for moral values (*e.g.*, 'act so as to increase or reinforce justice, well-being, and human rights') and obligations to avoid counter-productive goals (*e.g.*, 'act so as to avoid injustice, harm, and human rights violations') also known as moral prohibitions. Moral judgments include the full range of normative statements, from blame and praise to moral recommendations pro and con, unlike scientific judgments that state whether statements are true or false. In ethics, moral judgments are usually about the actions of moral subjects, both individuals and corporations, distinguishing between doing morally right and doing morally wrong. They can come in advance as guidance (*e.g.*, 'it is morally right to do this or that') and in retrospect as a verdict (that was morally wrong'). However, moral judgments may also be about the general attitudes of moral subjects, which typically distinguish between virtues and vices and are then called 'virtue ethics' (*e.g*. 'this person is guided by justice'). The examples illustrate that values can to some extent be translated into general norms, judgments, and virtues and *vice versa*. If either of them forms the basis of an ethical system or theory, it is considered an ethical or normative principle. Chemistry is thus the academic field that studies the moral values, norms, judgments, and virtues relevant to chemistry with the aim of providing moral guidance from a general ethics perspective. Because ethics takes, per definition an impartial stance, it may question, criticize, or confirm the moral attitudes of chemists -- as individuals, corporations, or local or global scientific society -- rather than taking them for granted. In ethics, like in any science, it does not matter what people believe at a certain time and place, but only what rational arguments can be provided to support or oppose a view. **Lecture 1 -- Ethical Theory** The chemist is "both a craftsman and a philosopher" (Knight 1992, 13). Chemistry traces its origins to such ancient crafts as metalworking, dyeing, tanning, and ceramics, and to the ancient philosophers' speculations about the nature of matter. As a unique combination of the theoretical and the practical, the practice of chemistry raises interesting ethical questions. Chemistry has transformed the modern world with amazing new materials, powerful drugs, agricultural products that have increased farm productivity, new and better explosives that can be used for both construction and destruction, synthetic textile fibers, brilliantly colored dyes, and countless others. With these advances have come unfortunate effects like environmental pollution. As a result, moral questions concerning the relationship between chemistry and society have become increasingly urgent (Hoffmann 1997). In ordinary language, the words ethics and morals are used interchangeably to refer to standards of conduct or social norms that guide proper behavior. The English ethics derives from the Greek ethika, meaning character or custom, and is related to the Latin mores, also meaning custom, which gave us the word moral. Some philosophers, however, distinguish between the two. Morals is often taken to refer to universal norms of human behavior---the distinction between good and evil---whereas ethics is used as a generic term for all the different ways scholars use to understand and examine our moral lives (Beauchamp and Childress 2001). An ethical theory is like a scientific theory, though there are differences. A scientific theory is supposed to provide some sort of explanation of a class of natural phenomena. An ethical theory is a systematic presentation of the basic components of ethics derived from an integrated set of principles that is supposed to provide ultimate reasons for moral decisions. Both scientific and ethical theories are testable. A scientific theory must provide clear predictions that can be tested experimentally. Similarly, the experimental facts of ethics are the clear cases; any ethical theory that condones actions that are clearly wrong must either be rejected or modified. On the other hand, ethical theory is prescriptive in a way that scientific theory cannot be. Ethical theories provide both explanation and guidance for behavior. In Western culture, ethical theory goes back to Plato and Aristotle (MacIntyre 1966). While there are many different variations, several major categories dominate ethical thinking. It is not essential to understand the various theories in detail, which is a formidable task, but a basic understanding is useful because they represent the different ways that moral arguments are constructed. Each provides a different perspective corresponding to the different intuitions we have about moral decisions. The theories provide different vocabularies and central concepts that appear repeatedly in our day-to-day discussions about ethics as well as the different kinds of reasons we use to plan and justify our actions. Moral norms, whether expressed as principles or as rules, are not rigid standards that exclude compromise. Real-life moral problems rarely have clean solutions. Often, two rules or principles come into conflict, or the facts of the case make it acceptable to bend or break a rule. For example, truthfulness is an important moral principle; but, in many situations, telling what is usually called a "white lie" can be justified. Philosopher W. D. Ross has distinguished between prima facie and actual obligations (Beauchamp and Childress 2001). A prima facie obligation is one that must be fulfilled unless it conflicts with some equal or stronger obligation. A prima facie obligation is related to clear cases---those actions that are clearly right or wrong. When confronted with a situation in which two or more prima facie obligations are in conflict, morally responsible people must analyze the competing factors and determine what their actual obligation is. An example of a classic moral dilemma that involves competing obligations can be expressed in the question: Would you lie to save a life? The application of rules and principles to real moral problems involves two processes. First, the rule or principle must be specified for the particular situation. Justice, or fairness, is a core moral principle; but in a particular circumstance, the principle might be interpreted in several equally valid ways. Suppose a group of people are snowbound and have only a limited supply of food. Does justice require that the food be distributed equally? Should, perhaps, a person who is sick or a small child receive more than a healthy adult? What seem to be strict moral rules have exceptions that need to be specified. Specification, however, cannot solve every problem. Two moral principles or rules might be in direct conflict. Such cases require balancing, deciding which principle or rule should be given greater weight. Morally responsible balancing requires good reasons to be given for the decision, and there are certainly cases in which two people of good character might disagree. The possibility that morally serious people might come to different solutions to a particular problem does not, however, imply ethical relativism--- the idea that moral standards vary from person to person or from culture to culture. While there are certainly observable differences in patterns of moral judgment among cultures, and even within cultures, this fact does not imply differences in moral standards. In fact, there are good reasons to believe that a widespread agreement on core moral values transcends cultural differences and that, essentially, all people of good character will agree on the rightness or wrongness of clear cases. The common morality that derives from our human experience does appear to be universal. There are communal norms that differ in various ways from common morality. These are the values shared by specific groups, including professions. **Lecture 1 -- Professionalism and Ethics in Chemistry** Professional ethics is specific. Legal ethics applies only to lawyers (and no one else); scientific ethics applies only to scientists. Professional ethics is consistent with common morality but goes beyond it. Professional ethics governs the interactions among professionals, and between professionals and society (Callahan 1988). In many cases, it requires a higher standard of conduct than is expected of those outside the profession, but the norms of professional ethics must be consistent with common morality. To understand professional ethics, it is necessary to understand the concept of a profession (Davis 1998) A profession is more than a group of people engaged in a common occupation for which they are paid. Using social contract approach, a profession derives from two bargains or contracts: one internal and one external. The internal bargain governs the interactions among members of the profession while the external bargain defines the relationship of the profession to society. Both, however, are based on a moral ideal of service around which the profession is organized (Davis 1987). For lawyers, the ideal is justice under law. For physicians, the ideal is curing the sick, protecting patients from disease, and easing the pain of the dying. As Michael Davis has argued, these moral ideals go beyond the demands of ordinary morality, the requirements of law, and the pressures of the market. Using a moral ideal as the fundamental basis of the profession comes from the old-fashioned idea of a profession as a calling. If members of a profession share a moral ideal, then the internal code of practice and code of ethics that develop out of that ideal have an authority that supersedes mere social convention or fear of sanctions; they represent the core values of the profession. For client-oriented service professions like law and medicine, the underlying moral ideal is fairly easy to identify. But is there a moral ideal for chemistry or for science in general? Simple as this question seems, it is complicated because science is not a monolith. The disciplinary and professional culture of chemistry is quite different from that of physics or biology. Even within chemistry, there are significant differences between the perspectives of organic and physical chemists. Over the years, Jeffrey Kovak  have developed a three-part moral ideal for science focused primarily on chemistry. The three parts address the three major aspects of science: the integrity of the scientific process, science as public knowledge, and the uses of science. The core of science is the research done by individuals and research groups in the laboratory. This is where scientists search for fundamental understanding. A powerful statement of the moral ideal underlying this search can be found in Jacob Bronowski's book Science and Human Values (1956); he calls it the "habit of truth." Science is the dispassionate search for the understanding of nature--- what John Ziman (1978) has called "reliable knowledge." Furthermore, scientific truth is of intrinsic value, independent of its applicability. Although science does lead to useful products and inventions, such applications are only secondary to the search for what Einstein called "the secrets of the old one" (French 1979, 275). The best scientific research is driven by an insatiable curiosity about the way the world works. And because scientific knowledge is severely constrained by experiment, scientists are bound by what Richard Feynman (1985) called "a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty---a kind of leaning over backwards" (341). Gerald Holton (1994), quoting P. W. Bridgman, called it "doing your damnedest, no holds barred." The second part of the moral ideal concerns the relationships between scientists: the principle of the gift economy. Because scientific research is so difficult and because science is public knowledge, the scientific community is bound by an ideal of relationship and open communication exemplified by the gift economy (Hyde 1979). The concept of a gift economy is best introduced by contrasting it with the commodity economy, which governs our day-to-day economic interactions. Transactions in the commodity economy are mutually beneficial, closed interactions: fee for goods, fee for service. We go to the grocery store and buy a quart of milk for the listed price, and both parties are happy. No further relationship (except perhaps that governed by a warranty) between buyer and seller is expected or desired. On the other hand, the gift economy is characterized by open interactions: People give each other advice, they do favors for each other, they coach and referee children's sports. Gift economies serve to bind people together and create mutual obligation. Commodity economies work under fairly strict rules that define and delimit mutual responsibilities and future obligations between the parties involved. Gift economies aim to initiate and maintain human interactions. One becomes a part of the gift economy by contributing something, by giving a gift. In the gift economy, those who are valued most are those who give the most. In the commodity economy, the most important people are those who have accumulated the most. Pure science operates largely as a gift economy (Baird 1997; McSherry 2001). Scientists contribute their work and often a great deal of their time without any specific expectation of a financial return. They contribute intellectual and creative gifts to the community in the form of their research results: experimental procedures, data, interpretations, and theories, for example. They contribute their time to presenting the results of their research at other institutions and at professional meetings without compensation, except perhaps for travel expenses and, in the best circumstances, a modest honorarium. Likewise, they referee articles and grant proposals. Most of the essential peer-review process in science is part of the gift economy. Some serve as editors of journals and books, again with little or if any financial compensation. They receive in return similar gifts from other members of the scientific community, but there is no quid pro quo. To be a member of the scientific community, therefore, one must contribute. The greatest scientists are those who contribute most, particularly in quality of work. For example, Linus Pauling was one of the greatest chemists of the twentieth century because his insights into the nature of chemical bonding, which he presented freely to the world, are used daily by working scientists; his findings redefined chemistry. Certainly, in the real-world scientists have other, less ideal motives. They strive for personal recognition, including national and international awards**.** They want to be compensated financially for their work and they compete for positions at prestigious universities or research institutes. They also compete for research grants, and for graduate students and postdoctoral associates to work in their research groups. But, the underlying ideal of the gift economy is still the core principle that creates the scientific community. On the other hand, Thomas Alva Edison developed and adapted scientific discoveries into salable commodities from which he gained profit, but he gave nothing back to the scientific community and, in fact, earned the ire of Henry Rowland who, once complained that the "spark of Faraday blazes at every street corner" (Moore 1982, 161). Rowland felt that Michael Faraday, who made the fundamental discoveries, should get the credit, not Edison, who merely developed the commercial product. While Edison contributed much to society through his inventions, he was not really considered a part of the scientific community because he contributed little either in fundamental knowledge or in experimental or theoretical techniques. While moral ideals may be the basis, professions are complex social organizations that evolve over time. The classic learned professions---law, medicine, and church---have long histories, though both medicine and law began to take their modern form only during the nineteenth century as improved transportation and communication fostered communities of practitioners (Starr 1982). Chemistry has a comparable history (Knight 1992; Brock 1992). **Lecture 2** Ethics is the branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct.\ \ As a branch of philosophy, ethics investigates the questions "What is the best way for people to live?" and "What actions are right or wrong in particular circumstances?" *In practice, ethics seeks to resolve questions of human morality, by defining concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime.* Administration is a group of people who manage the way a company, school, or other organization functions. For around 2000 years, medical students have recited the Hippocratic Oath as they graduate. Today, the popularity of this tradition may have waned, but most UK medical schools do still include an ethical oath of some form in their graduation ceremonies. First do no harm' is the central principle of all these oaths. And while their opponents lament their lack of legal clout, their proponents view ethical oaths as giving new doctors a moral compass to help guide them throughout their careers. It has long been acknowledged that medics are not the only scientists regularly faced with ethical dilemmas. In 1532, for example, French writer François Rabelais -- himself a doctor -- said that 'science without conscience is but the ruin of the soul'. The possibility of an oath for scientists and engineers has been discussed numerous times over the years, but none have come close to being implemented. Some of the concerns raised include oaths having the possibility to constrain the advancement of research. But might one make us more likely to stop and think about the ethics of what we are about to do? As Rabelais implied and Jurassic Park emphasized: just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. A license to practice scientific research -- another idea borrowed from the medical profession -- has also been unsuccessfully suggested to date. 'All a licence to practice does is give you a licence to sue,' explains Jeffrey Kovac, a chemistry professor at the University of Tennessee in the US and author of the book The ethical chemist: professionalism and ethics in science. 'It's not clear to me that it would do much to make chemists any more honest: lawyers are not any more honest because they're licensed.' Ethics is the science of human conduct in the society.  Ethics in any society deals with the members of any society how they behaved, how they are behaving and how they should behave. It is ethics which provide the rules of best human conduct and is divided into two branches: 1. The ideal moral code 2. The positive moral code **The ideal moral code** is a conduct, is related with natural law, the law which is not legislated or manmade but is enshrine in the hearts of people in society which are unchanged and remain true in the future.  **The positive moral code** deals with the rules of actual conduct as displayed in any society at certain times. Such rules of positive morality, being based on public opinion of a specific society, necessarily change with the men, places in the society What we consider good in any society at certain times may be bad at another time with the same society or nation. In any society it is not necessary that all people are ideal therefore some laws are required for the enforcement of certain rules of human conduct. Positive ethics is not reliant on volunteer conduct of good people in society but stands in need of forcible law for the public consciences. \ **Jurisprudence** is the science of law, namely, that science which has for its function to ascertain the principles on which legal rules are based, so as not only to classify those rules in their proper order, and show the relation in which they stand to one another, but also to settle the manner in which new or doubtful cases should be brought under the appropriate rules. **Ethical jurisprudence** inspects the conduct of human beings and recommends amendments if any required in the present law. So we can easily relate jurisprudence** **to positive ethics.