Ethics Lecture Notes PDF

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION TO ETHICS What is Ethics? Ethics are standards of conduct (or social norms) that prescribe behaviour. Standards of conduct do not describe our actual behaviour, since people often violate widely accepted sta...

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION TO ETHICS What is Ethics? Ethics are standards of conduct (or social norms) that prescribe behaviour. Standards of conduct do not describe our actual behaviour, since people often violate widely accepted standards. For example, most people in the Ghana accept the idea that one ought to tell the truth, yet many people lie all of the time. Even though people lie all the time, we indicate our endorsement of honesty as a standard of conduct by defending honesty in public, by teaching our children to be honest, and by expressing our disapproval of lying Ethics and Morality Morality consists of a society’s most general standards. These standards apply to all people in society regardless of their professional or institutional roles. Moral standards distinguish between right and wrong, good and bad, virtue and vice, justice and injustice. Many writers maintain that moral duties and obligations override other ones: if I have a moral duty not to lie, then I should not lie even if my employment requires me to lie. Moral standards include those rules that most people learn in childhood, e.g. “don’t lie, cheat, steal, harm other people, etc.” Ethics are not general standards of conduct but the standards of a particular profession, occupation, institution, or group with-in society. The word “ethics,” when used in this way, usually serves as a modifier for another word, e.g. business ethics, medical ethics, sports ethics, military ethics, Muslim ethics, etc. Ethics and Law There are several reasons why ethics is not law. First, some actions that are illegal may not be unethical. Speeding is illegal, but one might have an ethical obligation to break the speed limit in order to transport someone to a hospital in an emergency. Second, some actions that are unethical may not be illegal. Most people would agree that lying is unethical but lying is only illegal under certain conditions, e.g. lying on an income tax return, lying when giving sworn testimony, etc. Third, laws can be unethical or immoral (Hart 1961). The United States had laws permitting slavery in the 1800s but most people today would say that those laws were unethical or immoral. Although we have moral and ethical obligations to obey the law, civil disobedience can be justified when immoral or unethical laws exist. Finally, we use the coercive power of government to enforce laws. People who break certain laws can be fined, 1 imprisoned, or executed. People who violate ethical or moral standards do not face these kinds of punishments unless their actions also violate laws. Often we “punish” people who disobey moral or ethical obligations by simply expressing our disapproval or by condemning the behavior. Ethics and Religion The difference between ethics simpliciter and a particular religiously-based ethics is that religions provide justifications, definitions, and interpretations of standards of conduct. Religious institutions, texts, and theologies can be very useful in teaching ethics and in motivating ethical conduct. Indeed, religions probably play a key role in the moral education of most of the people in the world. Religion can supplement and complement ethics, even though ethics need not be tied to any particular religion or its teachings. During the past decade, scientists, laypeople, and politicians have become increasingly aware of the importance of ethics in scientific research. Several trends have contributed to these growing concerns. 1. First, the press has covered stories on ethical issues raised by science, such as the United States (US) government’s secret experiments on human beings during the Cold War, genetic engineering, the Human Genome Project, studies on the genetic basis of intelligence, the cloning of human embryos and animals, and global warming. 2. Second, scientists and government officials have investigated, documented, and adjudicated cases of ethical misconduct and ethically questionable conduct in many aspects of research, and a perceived lack of ethics in science has threatened the stability and integrity of research (PSRCR 1992, Hilts 1996, Hedges 1997). These cases include allegations of plagiarism, fraud, violations of the law, mismanagement of funds, exploitation of subordinates, violations of recombinant DNA regulations, discrimination, conflicts of interests, and problems with the FBI’s crime lab. Despite a growing body of evidence on unethical research, the data still indicate that the frequency of misconduct in science is quite low when compared to the frequency of misconduct in other professions, such as business, medicine, or law (PSRCR 1992). 3. A third reason why ethics has become a pressing concern is that science’s increasing interdependence with business and industry has generated ethical conflicts between scientific values and business values (PSRCR 1992, Reiser 1993). These conflicts have raised concerns about the funding of science, peer review, scientific openness, 2  the ownership of knowledge, and the sharing of resources. Universities have expressed concerns about scientists who use their facilities to conduct secret research for private industry or personal economic gain (Bowie 1994). In some cases, universities have fought lengthy court battles with businesses and individuals over patents and intellectual property rights. University administrators also complain that scientists who work for business are spending less time on their other duties, such as education. Scientists in various fields worry that the relationship between science and business will redirect research toward the solution of applied problems and that basic research will suffer. Government watchdogs have objected to allowing companies to profit from publicly funded research (Lomasky 1987). Reactions to concerns about ethical improprieties and issues in science In response to concerns about ethical improprieties and issues in science; 1. Various scientific institutions and societies, such as the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and Sigma Xi have commissioned committees to study ethical issues and improprieties in science and make policy recommendations (Sigma Xi 1986, 1993, AAAS 1991, PSRCR 1992, Committee on the Conduct of Science 1994). 2. Additionally, universities, businesses, and scientific societies have sponsored workshops and conferences that address ethical issues in science, scientists have initiated efforts to integrate ethics into the science curriculum at the graduate and undergraduate level of instruction, scholars from various sciences and the humanities have written books and articles about the ethics in research, and new journals have been started that address ethical issues in science (Reiser 1993, Bird and Spier 1995, Garte 1995). 3. Finally, scientific societies and organizations have adopted codes of ethics and have recommended that scientists integrate ethics into the science curriculum (Sigma Xi 1986, US Congress 1990, PSCRC 1992). Why some Scientist do not take Ethical improprieties very serious. 1. Because they regard misconduct as very rare and insignificant and view confirmed reports of misconduct as isolated incidents or anomalies. 3  2. Some scientists invoke the “psychological pathology” theory to explain misconduct: scientists who behave unethically must be mentally deranged because only a crazy person would think that they could get away with fraud, plagiarism, and other forms of misconduct (Broad and Wade 1993). 3. Crime does not pay in science, because the scientific method, the peer review system, and the public nature of scientific research serve as mechanisms for catching people who break science’s ethical rules. Thus, misconduct is not a problem in science because it does not occur often, and when it does, it does not reflect any significant flaws in the research environment. 4. Many scientists believe that no significant ethical issues arise in science because they view science as “objective.” Science studies facts, employs objective methods, and produces knowledge and consensus. Ethics, on the other hand, involves the study of values, employs subjective methods, and produces only opinion and disagreement. Hence, scientists need not concern themselves with ethical issues in conducting research or in teaching science. As members of society, scientists will of course need to confront ethical issues. But as members of the scientific community, scientists do not need to address these issues. Scientists need to follow ethical standards, of course, but these rules are clear cut. Scientists do not need to engage in a philosophical/ethical discussion in order to know that they should not fabricate or falsify data. Thus, science provides an objective sanctuary from the ethical issues and ambiguities that beleaguer other spheres of human existence. Even those scientists who take ethical improprieties and issues seriously may believe that scientists do not need to have any formal instruction in ethics. Some people hold that scientists need no formal instruction in ethics because they believe that people learn ethics when they are very young. There is little, if anything that a person can learn about ethics and morality by the time she enters college. If a person is already ethical when she enters the scientific profession, she will continue to be ethical; if she is not ethical when she enters science, then no amount of instruction can make her become ethical. Even those scientists who think that some kind of ethical learning can take place in science may still believe that there is no need to teach ethics because students learn ethics by example, practice, and osmosis. Since ethical knowledge in science is informal and tacit, scientists do not need to spend valuable class time going over ethical standards and concepts. Scientists can teach 4 ethics by showing students how to do good science and by modeling ethical conduct in science. If science’s research environment contributes to misconduct, then reports of misconduct reflect some structural problems in the research environment and cannot be treated as isolated incidents of pathological behaviour. Reasons for Ethical Improprieties and Issues Several aspects of the research environment may contribute to ethical improprieties and issues. 1. First, science is, for most scientists, a career. A successful career in science is achieved through publications, grants, research appointments, tenure, and awards. Most scientists who have academic appointments face the pressure to “publish or perish” before they earn tenure or get promoted. Nearly all tenure and promotion committees assess a scientist’s research efforts based largely on the quantity of his or her publications—the more the better. Even scientists who have earned tenure need to continue publishing at a high rate in order to gain a promotion or add to their prestige. Thus, some scientists may be tempted to violate ethical principles in order to advance their careers. 2. Second, government funding for research is tighter than ever, due to smaller budgets and more scientists seeking funding. In order to receive funding and to continue receiving it, scientists must produce results. If an experiment is not going well or the results have been ambiguous, scientists may gloss over these problems in applying for grants or in reporting results. 3. Third, research in many sciences carries economic rewards. A person who patents a new process, technique, or invention can earn thousands or even millions of dollars. Thus, economic incentives may also contribute to unethical practices in science. 4. Fourth, science’s highly touted self-correcting mechanisms—peer review, publication, and replication—often do not succeed in detecting fraud or error. Referees who review proposals or papers do not have time to thoroughly examine them for errors or fraud, many papers that are published are never read, and most experiments are not repeated (Broad and Wade 1993, Kiang 1995, Armstrong 1997). 5. Finally, it may also be the case that science education contributes to unethical behaviour. As I noted earlier, many scientists believe that they do not need to make a 5  serious attempt to teach research ethics. If students do not learn how to be ethical scientists, then it should come as no surprise that many of them behave unethically when they pursue careers in science. Moreover, educational practices and academic pressures can conspire to encourage misconduct (Petersdorf 1986, Sergestrale 1990, Browning 1995). Many laboratory exercises reward students for getting the right results, regardless of how they get them. Since students often know the results they are supposed to get, they may be tempted to fudge, fabricate, or trim data in order to get those results. Most students are under pressure to get good grades and they may cheat in order to get them. This is especially true among premedical students, who must get very high grades in order to be admitted to medical school. Thus, ethical improprieties in science cannot be viewed as an anomaly since they probably result from factors operating within the research and learning environment. Although it is difficult to estimate the incidence of scientific misconduct, any misconduct should be taken seriously (PSRCR 1992). Even if misconduct is still very rare in science, the fact that it occurs at all is cause for concern since any misconduct damages science’s public image and erodes public support for science. Ethical issues and controversies can arise in science because science is a cooperative activity that takes place within a larger social and political context (Longino 1990). Scientists cannot escape from the ethical quandaries and issues that arise in other walks of life. Purely objective science is a myth perpetuated by those who would flee from fuzzy, controversial, and vexing questions. Ethical dilemmas and issues can also arise in science because scientists often do not agree on the standards of conduct that should govern science or how standards should be interpreted or applied (Whitbeck 1995a). For instance, publication practices are an area of ethical dispute in science because they often involve disputes about how to allocate credit and responsibility (Rose and Fisher 1995). Ethical issues also arise as a result of science’s interaction with the public because scientific research often has important social, moral, and political consequences (Committee on the Conduct of Science 1994). There are several reasons why science students need some kind of formal instruction in ethics. 1. First, although a great deal of ethical learning takes place in childhood, evidence from developmental psychology indicates that people continue to learn about ethics and 6  moral reasoning throughout life (Rest 1986). College age students and older adults can learn to recognize ethical issues, make moral choices in novel situations, and reason about ethics and morality. They can also learn ethical concepts, theories, and principles, they can appreciate different points of view, and they can even develop moral virtues. 2. Moreover, some ethical concepts and principles can only be learned by understanding and practicing an occupation or profession. For example, the doctrine of “informed consent” in medical research requires some special ethics education beyond what one would learn in kindergarten or grade school. In order to learn about informed consent in research, one must begin to understand and practice medical research. Thus, some ethical learning can take place in undergraduate, graduate, and professional education (Rest and Narvaez 1994). 3. Although informal methods of instruction may be the best way to teach scientists how to be ethical, there is still a need for formal instruction in ethics because informal instruction is not getting the job done (Hollander et al. 1995). There are several reasons why informal instruction is not working adequately. Modern science is a very large and complex social institution. A typical laboratory may include dozens or even hundreds of senior and junior researchers, postdoctoral fellows and graduate students. There are too many people in most research settings to rely solely on informal instruction to transmit ethical knowledge, to insure that research standards are upheld, or to discuss important ethical concerns. Furthermore, science education at the undergraduate level is often conducted on a massive scale; introductory science classes at state universities may be filled with hundreds of students. Once again, size works against informal instruction, since students in large classes do not get enough of an opportunity to discuss ethical issues. Finally, not all scientists do a good job of modeling ethical conduct. If science students witness scientists behaving unethically, then they are less likely to learn how to behave ethically. 7  CHAPTER TWO ETHICAL THEORY AND APPLICATIONS BRANCHES OF ETHICS I. Normative Ethics (or Prescriptive Ethics) It is the branch of ethics concerned with establishing how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, and which actions are right or wrong. It attempts to develop a set of rules governing human conduct, or a set of norms for action. Normative ethical theories are usually split into three main categories A. Consequentialism (or Teleological Ethics) It argues that the morality of an action is contingent on the action's outcome or result. Thus, a morally right action is one that produces a good outcome or consequence. Consequentialist theories must consider questions like "What sort of consequences count as good consequences?", "Who is the primary beneficiary of moral action?", "How are the consequences judged and who judges them?" Some consequentialist theories include: 1. Ethical Egoism: It holds that an action is right if it maximizes good for the self. Thus, Egoism may license actions which are good for individual, but detrimental to the general welfare. Individual Egoism holds that all people should do whatever benefits him. Personal Egoism holds that he should act in his own self-interest, but makes no claims about what anyone else ought to do. Universal Egoism holds that everyone should act in ways that are in their own interest. 2. Utilitarianism: This holds that an action is right if it leads to the most happiness for the greatest number of people ("happiness" here is defined as the maximization of pleasure and the minimization of pain). The origins of Utilitarianism can be traced back as far as the Greek philosopher Epicurus, but its full formulation is usually credited to Jeremy Betham, with John Stuart Mill as its foremost proponent. 3. Hedonism: It is the philosophy that pleasure is the most important pursuit of mankind, and that individuals should strive to maximise their own total pleasure (net of any pain or suffering). Epicureanism is a more moderate approach (which still seeks to maximize happiness, but which defines happiness more as a state of tranquillity than pleasure). 8 B. DEONTOLOGY It is an approach to ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions. It argues that decisions should be made considering the factors of one's duties and other's rights. Some deontological theories include: 1. Divine Command Theory: a form of deontological theory which states that an action is right if God has decreed that it is right, and that that an act is obligatory if and only if (and because) it is commanded by God. Thus, moral obligations arise from God's commands, and the rightness of any action depends upon that action being performed because it is a duty, not because of any good consequences arising from that action. 2. Natural Rights Theory (such as that espoused by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke), which holds that humans have absolute, natural rights (in the sense of universal rights that are inherent in the nature of ethics, and not contingent on human actions or beliefs). This eventually developed into what we today call human rights. 3. Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative, which roots morality in humanity's rational capacity and asserts certain inviolable moral laws. Kant's formulation is deontological in that he argues that to act in the morally right way, people must act according to duty, and that it is the motives of the person who carries out the action that make them right or wrong, not the consequences of the actions. Simply stated, the Categorical Imperative states that one should only act in such a way that one could want the maxim (or motivating principle) of one's action to become a universal law, and that one should always treat people as an end as well as a means to an end. C. VIRTUE ETHICS This focuses on the inherent character of a person rather than on the nature or consequences of specific actions performed. The system identifies virtues , counsels practical wisdom to resolve any conflicts between virtues, and claims that a lifetime of practising these virtues leads to, or in effect constitutes, happiness and the good life. Some of the theories includes; 1. Eudaimonism is a philosophy originated by Aristotle that defines right action as that which leads to "well- being", and which can be achieved by a lifetime of practising the virtues in one's everyday activities, subject to the exercise of practical wisdom. It 9  was first advocated by Plato and is particularly associated with Aristotle, and became the prevailing approach to ethical thinking in the Ancient and Medieval periods. It fell out of favour in the Early Modern period, but has recently undergone a modern resurgence 2. Agent-Based Theories: It give an account of virtue based on our common-sense intuitions about which character traits are admirable (e.g. benevolence, kindness, compassion, etc), which we can identify by looking at the people we admire, our moral exemplars. 3. Ethics of Care: It was developed mainly by Feminist writers, and calls for a change in how we view morality and the virtues, shifting towards the more marginalized virtues exemplified by women, such as taking care of others, patience, the ability to nurture, self-sacrifice, etc II. APPLIED ETHICS Applied Ethics is a discipline of philosophy that attempts to apply ethical theory to real-life situations. Strict, principle-based ethical approaches often result in solutions to specific problems that are not universally acceptable or impossible to implement. Applied Ethics is much more ready to include the insights of psychology, sociology and other relevant areas of knowledge in its deliberations. It is used in determining public policy. The following would be questions of Applied Ethics: "Is getting an abortion immoral?", "Is euthanasia immoral?", "Is affirmative action right or wrong?", "What are human rights, and how do we determine them?" and "Do animals have rights as well?" Some topics falling within the discipline include: Medical ethics, Media ethics, Business ethics, Legal ethics, etc III. META-ETHICS Meta-Ethics is concerned primarily with the meaning of ethical judgements, and seeks to understand the nature of ethical properties, statements, attitudes, and judgements and how they may be supported or defended. A meta-ethical theory, unlike a normative ethical theory (see below), does not attempt to evaluate specific choices as being better, worse, good, bad or evil; rather it tries to define the essential meaning and nature of the problem being discussed. It concerns itself with second order questions, specifically, the semantics, epistemology and ontology of ethics. 10 IV. DESCRIPTIVE ETHICS Descriptive Ethics is a value-free approach to ethics which examines ethics from the perspective of observations of actual choices made by moral agents in practice. It is the study of people's beliefs about morality, and implies the existence of, rather than explicitly prescribing, theories of value or of conduct. It is not designed to provide guidance to people in making moral decisions, nor is it designed to evaluate the reasonableness of moral norms. Descriptive Ethics is sometimes referred to as Comparative Ethics because so much activity can involve comparing ethical systems: comparing the ethics of the past to the present; comparing the ethics of one society to another; and comparing the ethics which people claim to follow with the actual rules of conduct which do describe their actions. Tools for Critical Thinking According to Sibtain (2010), when talking about critical thinking and ethics, a few questions arise. 1. What do ethics mean to you? 2. What are some different beliefs about ethical living? Which ones do you tend to agree with more? Is it hard to live ethically? 3. What role do reason, emotion, and intuition play when making ethical decisions? 4. Have you experienced these, and have you ever felt a conflict between the three? 5. What are some of the tools of critical thinking for ethics? Have you ever used them? How to Solve Ethical Dilema So how does one “solve” an ethical dilemma? A solution to an ethical dilemma would be a decision or choice about what one ought to do. A fairly simple method for making any kind of choice also applies to ethical choices. This method is a kind of practical reasoning that proceeds as follows (Fox and DeMarco 1990): Step 1: Frame a set of questions. Step 2: Gather information. Step 3: Explore different options. Step 4: Evaluate options. Step 5: Make a decision. Step 6: Take action. 11 According to Heinkes (2009), tools to consider in ethical thinking are 1. Values 2. Argument 3. Finding facts 4. Language 5. Debate 12  CHAPTER THREE STANDARDS OF ETHICAL CONDUCT IN SCIENCE Ethical standards in science have two conceptual foundations, morality and science. Ethical conduct in science should not violate commonly accepted moral standards and it should promote the advancement of scientific goals. For example, fabricating data is unethical in science because it is a form of lying, which is morally wrong, and because data fabrication promulgates errors and destroys the atmosphere of trust that plays a key role in science. ETHICAL PRINCIPLES 1. Honesty Scientists should not fabricate, falsify, or misrepresent data or results. They should be objective, unbiased, and truthful in all aspects of the research process. This principle is science’s most important rule because if this principle is not followed, it will be impossible to achieve science’s goals. Neither the search for knowledge nor the solution of practical problems can go forward when dishonesty reigns. Honesty also promotes the cooperation and trust necessary for scientific research. Scientists need to be able to trust each other, but this trust breaks down when scientists are not honest (Committee on the Conduct of Science 1994, Whitbeck 1995b). Finally, honesty is justified on moral grounds: all people, including scientists, should be truthful. Many kinds of dishonesty in science involve the production and analysis of data. Fabrication occurs when scientists make up data; falsification occurs when scientists alter data or results (PSRCR 1992). Misrepresentation occurs when scientists do not truthfully or objectively report data or results. The most common forms of misrepresentation are known as trimming, cooking, and fudging. Trimming occurs when scientists fail to report results that do not support their hypotheses. Fudging occurs when scientists try to make results appear to be better than they really are. Scientists “cook” the data when they design tests or experiments in order to obtain results they already have good reasons to suspect will be positive or when they avoid conducting tests that are likely to yield negative results. 2. Carefuleness Scientists should avoid errors in research, especially in presenting results. They should minimize experimental, methodological, and human errors and avoid self-deception, bias, and conflicts of interest. 13 Carefulness, like honesty, promotes the goals of science in that errors can hinder the advancement of knowledge as much as outright lies. As we noted earlier, a lack of carefulness is not the same thing as dishonesty, since carelessness need not involve the intent to deceive. Carefulness also is important in promoting cooperation and trust among scientists and the efficient use of scientific resources (Whitbeck 1995b). When relying on someone else’s work, scientists normally assume that the research is valid. This is an important assumption to make because it would be an incredible waste of time to check every piece of research one uses for errors. When errors plague the research process, scientists cannot make this important assumption, they cannot trust each other, and they must waste time and energy checking for errors. Many scientists do not view error as a serious crime against science, even though errors are more prevalent than fraud. A scientist who publishes a paper containing numerous errors might be viewed as incompetent but not as unethical. However, even though carelessness is not as serious an offense as dishonesty, it is still very important to avoid carelessness, since errors can waste resources, erode trust, and result in disastrous social consequences. Errors in applied research, medicine, and engineering, can cause a great deal of harm. A miscalculation in a drug dosage can kill dozens of people, and a defect in a bridge design can kill hundreds. Thus, although some errors can be treated as honest mistakes or incompetence, serious and repeated errors can be viewed as a form of negligence (Resnik 1996b). The proper response to discovering an error in one’s published or submitted work is to admit the mistake and publish a correction, erratum, or retraction. 3. Openness Scientists should share data, results, methods, ideas, techniques, and tools. They should allow other scientists to review their work and be open to criticism and new ideas. The principle of openness promotes the advancement of knowledge by allowing scientists to review and criticize each other’s work; science’s peer review system depends on openness (Munthe and Welin 1996). Openness prevents science from becoming dogmatic, uncritical, and biased. Openness also contributes to the advancement of science by helping to build an atmosphere of cooperation and trust in science and by enabling scientists to use resources effectively (Bird and Houseman 1995). Knowledge can be obtained more effectively when scientists work together instead of in isolation, when they share data, research sites, and resources, when they build on previous research, and so forth. Another reason in favor of 14 openness in science is that secrecy undermines the public’s trust in science (Bok 1982). When scientific activities are not open and accessible, people can begin to suspect that scientists are dishonest or untrustworthy, and the scientific profession can suffer many adverse consequences when public support for science erodes. Finally, insofar as all people have a moral duty to help other people, and the sharing of data and resources constitutes a form of help, scientists have a general, moral obligation to avoid secrecy in addition to their scientific duties to be open. 4. Social Responsibility Scientists should avoid causing harms to society and they should attempt to produce social benefits. Scientists should be responsible for the consequences of their research and they should inform the public about those consequences. The general idea behind this principle is that scientists have a responsibility to society (Lakoff 1980, Shrader-Frechette 1994). Scientists should not conduct inquiry with the attitude that someone else can worry about the consequences of research or science’s impact on society. Social responsibility implies that scientists have an obligation to conduct socially valuable research, to participate in public debates, to give expert testimony (if asked), to help make science policy, and to debunk junk science. Some scientists may reject the notion of social responsibility on the grounds that scientists should pursue knowledge for its own sake and should let politicians and the public deal with the social consequences of research. Responsibility for the social impacts of science falls on the media, politicians, and the public, not on scientists. Although this attitude has become less common in recent years, it still has a significant enough influence that it is worth refuting. 5. Legality In the process of research, scientists should obey the laws pertaining to their work. All people, including scientists, have moral obligations to obey the law. Moreover, science may suffer great damage when scientists disobey the law: scientists may be arrested, equipment may be confiscated, funding may be denied, the public support for science may erode, and so forth. Laws pertain to many different aspects of research, including the use of hazardous and controlled substances, the use of human and animal subjects, the disposal of wastes, hiring practices, the appropriation of funds, and copyrights and patents (PSRCR 1992). Although scientists have strong moral and ethical duties to obey the law, this standard 15 of conduct, like the other ones, can have exceptions. One might argue that sometimes scientists can break the law in order to gain important knowledge or benefit society. 6. Mutual Respect Scientists shuld treat colleagues with respect. Although this principle can be justified on moral grounds, it can also be justified in that it is important for achieving scientific objectives: the scientific community is built on cooperation and trust, which will break down when scientists do not respect one another (Whitbeck 1995b). Without mutual respect, the social fabric of science unravels, and the pursuit of scientific aims slows down. The principle implies that scientists should not harm one another, either physically or psychologically, that they should respect personal privacy, that they should not tamper with each other’s experiments or results, and so forth. Although one might argue that some of the best scientists have not respected their colleagues (Hull 1988), the stereotype of the aggressive, mean-spirited, though highly successful scientist does not hold for science as a whole. While science can operate effectively when some people behave this way, I doubt whether it could operate effectively if all scientists behaved this way. 7. Efficiency 8. Respect for Intellectual Property 9. Objectivity 10. Integrity 11. Responsible publication 12. Non-discrimination 13. Competence 14. Animal Care CODE OF ETHICS OF ENGINEERS (Adopted from the National Society of Professional Engineers) Preamble Engineering is an important and learned profession. As members of this profession, engineers are expected to exhibit the highest standards of honesty and integrity. Engineering has a direct and vital impact on the quality of life for all people. Accordingly, the services provided by engineers require honesty, impartiality, fairness, and equity, and must be dedicated to the 16  protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. Engineers must perform under a standard of professional behavior that requires adherence to the highest principles of ethical conduct. I. Fundamental Canons. Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall: 1. Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. 2. Perform services only in areas of their competence. 3. Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner. 4. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees. 5. Avoid deceptive acts. 6. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession. II. Rules of Practice 1. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. a. If engineers' judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property, they shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate. b. Engineers shall approve only those engineering documents that are in conformity with applicable standards. c. Engineers shall not reveal facts, data, or information without the prior consent of the client or employer except as authorized or required by law or this Code. d. Engineers shall not permit the use of their name or associate in business ventures with any person or firm that they believe is engaged in fraudulent or dishonest enterprise. e. Engineers shall not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering by a person or firm. f. Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall report thereon to appropriate professional bodies and, when relevant, also to public authorities, and cooperate with the proper authorities in furnishing such information or assistance as may be required. 2. Engineers shall perform services only in the areas of their competence.. Engineers shall undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved. a. Engineers shall not affix their signatures to any plans or documents dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence, nor to any plan or document not prepared under their direction and control. 17  b. Engineers may accept assignments and assume responsibility for coordination of an entire project and sign and seal the engineering documents for the entire project, provided that each technical segment is signed and sealed only by the qualified engineers who prepared the segment. 3. Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.. Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony. They shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements, or testimony, which should bear the date indicating when it was current. a. Engineers may express publicly technical opinions that are founded upon knowledge of the facts and competence in the subject matter. b. Engineers shall issue no statements, criticisms, or arguments on technical matters that are inspired or paid for by interested parties, unless they have prefaced their comments by explicitly identifying the interested parties on whose behalf they are speaking, and by revealing the existence of any interest the engineers may have in the matters. 4. Engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.. Engineers shall disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest that could influence or appear to influence their judgment or the quality of their services. a. Engineers shall not accept compensation, financial or otherwise, from more than one party for services on the same project, or for services pertaining to the same project, unless the circumstances are fully disclosed and agreed to by all interested parties. b. Engineers shall not solicit or accept financial or other valuable consideration, directly or indirectly, from outside agents in connection with the work for which they are responsible. c. Engineers in public service as members, advisors, or employees of a governmental or quasi-governmental body or department shall not participate in decisions with respect to services solicited or provided by them or their organizations in private or public engineering practice. d. Engineers shall not solicit or accept a contract from a governmental body on which a principal or officer of their organization serves as a member. 5. Engineers shall avoid deceptive acts.. Engineers shall not falsify their qualifications or permit misrepresentation of their or their associates' qualifications. They shall not misrepresent or exaggerate their responsibility in or for the subject matter of prior assignments. Brochures or other presentations incident to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent pertinent facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint venturers, or past accomplishments. a. Engineers shall not offer, give, solicit, or receive, either directly or indirectly, any contribution to influence the award of a contract by public authority, or which may be reasonably construed by the public as having the effect or intent of influencing the awarding of a contract. They shall not offer any gift or other valuable consideration in order to secure work. They shall not pay a commission, percentage, or brokerage fee in order to secure work, 18  except to a bona fide employee or bona fide established commercial or marketing agencies retained by them. III. Professional Obligations 1. Engineers shall be guided in all their relations by the highest standards of honesty and integrity. a. Engineers shall acknowledge their errors and shall not distort or alter the facts. b. Engineers shall advise their clients or employers when they believe a project will not be successful. c. Engineers shall not accept outside employment to the detriment of their regular work or interest. Before accepting any outside engineering employment, they will notify their employers. d. Engineers shall not attempt to attract an engineer from another employer by false or misleading pretenses. e. Engineers shall not promote their own interest at the expense of the dignity and integrity of the profession. 2. Engineers shall at all times strive to serve the public interest.. Engineers are encouraged to participate in civic affairs; career guidance for youths; and work for the advancement of the safety, health, and well-being of their community. a. Engineers shall not complete, sign, or seal plans and/or specifications that are not in conformity with applicable engineering standards. If the client or employer insists on such unprofessional conduct, they shall notify the proper authorities and withdraw from further service on the project. b. Engineers are encouraged to extend public knowledge and appreciation of engineering and its achievements. c. Engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development1 in order to protect the environment for future generations. 3. Engineers shall avoid all conduct or practice that deceives the public.. Engineers shall avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact. a. Consistent with the foregoing, engineers may advertise for recruitment of personnel. b. Consistent with the foregoing, engineers may prepare articles for the lay or technical press, but such articles shall not imply credit to the author for work performed by others. 4. Engineers shall not disclose, without consent, confidential information concerning the business affairs or technical processes of any present or former client or employer, or public body on which they serve.. Engineers shall not, without the consent of all interested parties, promote or arrange for new employment or practice in connection with a specific project for which the engineer has gained particular and specialized knowledge. 19  a. Engineers shall not, without the consent of all interested parties, participate in or represent an adversary interest in connection with a specific project or proceeding in which the engineer has gained particular specialized knowledge on behalf of a former client or employer. 5. Engineers shall not be influenced in their professional duties by conflicting interests.. Engineers shall not accept financial or other considerations, including free engineering designs, from material or equipment suppliers for specifying their product. a. Engineers shall not accept commissions or allowances, directly or indirectly, from contractors or other parties dealing with clients or employers of the engineer in connection with work for which the engineer is responsible. 6. Engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers, or by other improper or questionable methods.. Engineers shall not request, propose, or accept a commission on a contingent basis under circumstances in which their judgment may be compromised. a. Engineers in salaried positions shall accept part-time engineering work only to the extent consistent with policies of the employer and in accordance with ethical considerations. b. Engineers shall not, without consent, use equipment, supplies, laboratory, or office facilities of an employer to carry on outside private practice. 7. Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers. Engineers who believe others are guilty of unethical or illegal practice shall present such information to the proper authority for action.. Engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated. a. Engineers in governmental, industrial, or educational employ are entitled to review and evaluate the work of other engineers when so required by their employment duties. b. Engineers in sales or industrial employ are entitled to make engineering comparisons of represented products with products of other suppliers. 8. Engineers shall accept personal responsibility for their professional activities, provided, however, that engineers may seek indemnification for services arising out of their practice for other than gross negligence, where the engineer's interests cannot otherwise be protected.. Engineers shall conform with state registration laws in the practice of engineering. a. Engineers shall not use association with a nonengineer, a corporation, or partnership as a "cloak" for unethical acts. 9. Engineers shall give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due, and will recognize the proprietary interests of others.. Engineers shall, whenever possible, name the person or persons who may be individually responsible for designs, inventions, writings, or other accomplishments. 20 a. Engineers using designs supplied by a client recognize that the designs remain the property of the client and may not be duplicated by the engineer for others without express permission. b. Engineers, before undertaking work for others in connection with which the engineer may make improvements, plans, designs, inventions, or other records that may justify copyrights or patents, should enter into a positive agreement regarding ownership. c. Engineers' designs, data, records, and notes referring exclusively to an employer's work are the employer's property. The employer should indemnify the engineer for use of the information for any purpose other than the original purpose. d. Engineers shall continue their professional development throughout their careers and should keep current in their specialty fields by engaging in professional practice, participating in continuing education courses, reading in the technical literature, and attending professional meetings and seminars. 21