How Do Ethics Effect Science?
Photo by Caleb Jones on Unsplash
“The word “good” has many meanings. For example, if a man were to shoot his grandmother at a range of five hundred yards, I should call him a good shot, but not necessarily a good man.”
The work of science raises ethical questions, because the scientific method is a powerful tool that can be used for good or for evil. Scientists can use their knowledge to serve and bless mankind, to seek advantages for themselves, or to act destructively towards others. Scientists have found a vaccine for polio, and scientists have invented chemical weapons (not the same scientists). Scientists have inspired awe and wonder by revealing the grandeur of the cosmos, and scientists have re-created dinosaurs, causing several people to lose their lives in a failed attempt to create an island dinosaur park (that one might not be real).
Common Grace
What keeps scientists working toward noble ends, even those scientists who don’t spend a lot of time thinking about ethics? Timothy Keller and Katherine Leary Alsdorf, in their book about Christians and work (Every Good Endeavor, 2012) explain the concept of Common Grace. Most Christians understand the concept of Original Sin: that because Adam and Eve chose to rebel against God, we are all, as a species, inclined toward sin and rebellion.
Fewer Christians are familiar with Common Grace, the belief that even though we are sinful, we are still made in the image of God, and though His image in us has been bent by the Fall, it hasn't been shattered. So, we are all capable of tremendous good, whether or not we acknowledge that we are made in God's image. Because of these two truths, "Christians are never as good as their right beliefs should make them and non-Christians are never as bad as their wrong beliefs should make them." (p. 197)
The Moral Law
The best scientific work, great as it is, is not perfect, and the worst scientific work, as bad as it is, is not as evil as it could be. But there is a spectrum of morality in between. C. S. Lewis, in his classic book Mere Christianity (1952), argues that there is an objective moral law, and that everyone, regardless of what they might say, believes in it. If we examine the moral systems of all the different cultures around the world and throughout history, what we find is not great variety, but shocking similarity. With few exceptions, it has always been considered "not good" to murder, lie, be a coward, cheat on your spouse(s), or trample the weak. And where we do find exceptions, we naturally judge those cultures, because we feel that ours is better, or that we know better. We are measuring all systems of morality against an ideal that we have in mind. But where did that ideal come from, and who says it's right?
And even those cultures that have rejected what most people would consider the right morality, by, for instance, accepting polygamy or by committing infanticide, often justify their harsher beliefs by appealing to a greater good. They might say that polygamy is necessary for all women to be taken care of when there aren't enough strong men, or they might say that they have to kill the weakest in order to make society stronger as a whole. These cultures appeal to extenuating circumstances the way criminals do when caught ("I robbed them because it's not fair that they are richer than the rest of us." or “I shot that politician because she incorrectly used the word ‘literally.’”). Humans are constantly appealing to this universal, invisible law of right and wrong, whether we are conscious of it or not. Lewis argues that this law is evidence that God exists and wants us to act a certain way.
The question for scientists, then, is how to know what the laws of morality are and how they apply to science. There are some general moral principles that apply to all work, and some that apply specially in the scientific world.
Honesty
It is vitally important that scientists be honest with other scientists and with the public. Most of us have heard at least one story of a scientist being caught falsifying data to skew the results of his or her work. Why, in a scientific culture where every big discovery is subject to scrutiny, would someone be so foolish and risk ruining their career? One reason is a personal drive to get recognition, to feel like a “somebody" in the scientific community. Another is the pressure that scientists feel to justify their work and the expenses that go with it. Another might be to cover up poorly-designed experiments and avoid admitting mistakes.
The pressure on the people at the top level of any field to outdo their contemporaries can be enormous, and some scientists are tempted to find ways to cut corners and get ahead. Fortunately, the scientific method is self-correcting; experiments are supposed to be reproducible, and scientists who want to be taken seriously publish their methods for others to test. For complex or expensive experiments, the self-correcting nature of science can work very slowly, but eventually the truth comes out.
Humility
Many motivations compel people to fight for their positions on controversial issues, and it can be hard to cut through the static and know the objective truth. Everyone, no matter what their worldview, would benefit if more of us followed Paul's exhortation to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). The truth matters, but it is not something we use as a weapon to bludgeon our opponents (except Satan). We must find ways to speak the truth lovingly to those who don't want to hear it.
But if some scientists would be less condescending and more winning in their approach to difficult issues, they might get more people to stop and ask, "Do I have my facts straight?" And we could begin to have more respectful conversations about even divisive and controversial issues. "The truth is out there," said the X-Files, and that's right; truth is real and we can find it. But we must have the humility to set aside our preconceptions, and to practice patience with those who disagree with us.
Respect
Science is best conducted in an atmosphere of respect for all people. This is exhibited in the way scientists talk to and about each other, how they interact with those who don't work in the sciences, and, perhaps most importantly, in how they carry out scientific work that affects other people. When it comes to medical science and psychology, science intersects with human life in very personal ways, and we ought to be careful to afford every person the dignity inherent in being human.
Respect also means that we honor one another's humanity even when we strenuously disagree with their ideas. Scientists disagree all the time, and their disagreements can turn personal and nasty. But our moral guide should be this: that ideas are important, but people are more important. While we can (and often should) attack each others' ideas, we ought to keep it professional, not personal. Again, we should speak the truth in a spirit of love.
Justice
Most people agree that justice is important. But there is some disagreement about the best methods to bring it about. How can scientists act justly? To give credit where credit is due. To prioritize funding, time, and effort toward the things that are most worthy of study. To make sure that the people doing hard work are rewarded for their effort. To share the fruits of scientific discovery in ways that help humanity.
The details about how all of these things are implemented in the real world is an ongoing discussion. The important thing is that we never let the principle of justice fade from view, and that we never become numb to the consequences of our actions. Each scientist ought to consider how justice applies to his or her own work, and how he or she can use science to help make the world more just.
Stewardship
Scientists practice good stewardship by carefully considering their priorities. Setting priorities is a constant part of being a scientist. One must every day decide how to order scientific work, from allocating funding, resources, and time, to deciding which projects to work on, to choosing which applications of scientific information to pursue. We don't always think of this stewardship as a moral issue, but how we structure our scientific work is a direct reflection of our values.
Should a doctor spend his life in a village in Africa, treating and preventing malaria and saving sick babies, or set up shop as a plastic surgeon in Beverly Hills and make enough money to buy a mansion? How should a NASA rocket specialist balance her time between making space vehicles safer and/or faster, and/or cheaper? Should a talented biotech chemist spend his life developing a cure for a disease or a new line of age-defying makeup?
How we spend our time, money, and physical resources determines what our lives mean to other people. I’m not arguing that every scientist in the world needs to be looking for a cure for cancer; not everyone has passion or talent in that area. But each person working in the sciences should steward their work in a way that makes them valuable to humanity (or animal-kind), not just the earner of a paycheck. If you're working in science, and you feel that the only value of your work is to you and your employer, you really ought to consider whether you are being a good steward of your talents, even if you are "successful" by other measures.
Work Ethic
The scientists I know are generally very hard workers, and I don't think that is by chance. Science is hard; you usually have to be good at math and have a sharp mind and excellent memory to be a good scientist. The folks who go into scientific work do it because they are passionate about their field. Most scientists don’t get rich, even if they work hard. They have to truly love their work and be motivated by passion and curiosity.
But, even when a scientist is passionate about his or her field, there are times when people get burnt out, or when it would be easier to cut corners or "phone it in" for a while. But doing your best work, even when no one is watching (and especially when no one is watching), is important. Why? Because it is our opportunity to shape ourselves. When you choose to do excellent work even when no one will notice or care, you are making yourself into the kind of person who is excellent in all things, and that pleases God.
Christianity and Morality
While Common Grace enables all people to know right from wrong, the Christian worldview provides a rich and beautiful moral philosophy that can guide us in scientific endeavors. While science can tell us what is possible, we need morality to tell us what is good. It's great to be able to say, whatever your religion, that something is right or wrong. But Christians have the tremendous advantage of being able to add, "and here's why."
Some people believe that science and faith occupy two entirely separate spheres of knowledge (Stephen Jay Gould called them "non-overlapping magisteria"). And that's true to a certain degree: you can be a very good scientist without thinking very much about theology, and you can be a person of great faith without thinking very much about science. But there are places where the two realms touch, and morality is one of those.
Conducting experiments will never produce a coherent moral ethic; that can only come from philosophy and theology. So if science is to have any moral direction, it has to look outside itself. And when it does, Christianity is there to provide a complete, coherent, rationally-sound moral framework through which to work out tough moral questions.