Clinicians have ethical codes, should scientists have them too?
Professor Alastair Hay
Clinicians have ethical codes, should scientists have them too?
Sir Joseph Rotblat, who first championed the call for a moral code of conduct directed at scientists, premised his ideas upon the foundations of the Hippocratic Oath1. Pertaining to the ethical practice of medicine and taken by graduates of medical school, the oath was designed, in part, to recognise the duty that the doctor has to the patient; to safeguard the autonomy, freedom from discrimination and standard of healthcare that the patient receives. In an age of rapidly progressing scientific development, limited largely only by vision and time, it must be considered that, as the doctor has a duty to his patient perhaps so too does the scientist have an obligation to the scientific community and society as a whole. Moreover, as public mistrust of the scientific world continues to grow, stimulated by incidents such as Wakefield et al study into the MMR vaccine, it seems increasingly necessary to formalize a code of conduct aimed at encouraging integrity and good practice whilst at the same time fostering an understanding of ethical and moral awareness2,3. To this end, a form of ethical code could provide a framework, inside of the law, from which scientists would operate within and would also provide guidance and consideration on matters upon which the scientist has an obligation to and an impact upon, direct or indirect. Hereby, issues such as justification and lawfulness of research, scientific objectivity, societal issues, methods of operation and good practice would be brought to the fore. It must however be recognised that the attempt to cognize the world lies fundamental to the core objective of the practicing scientist and to limit this, through the enforcement of rigid codes, would be to undermine the scientific pursuit of knowledge. As such, it is apparent that whilst the implementation of ethical codes would provide a scaffold for moral and good practice, they must be both malleable and flexible, with an element of precision, so as not to either become the limiting factor upon scientific development or become bland and generic.
Within all quarters of the world, the rapid speed and increase in scientific development has been fuelled by vast and constantly evolving research based projects, however currently no international guidelines exist relating to the ethical assessment of such work4,5. Within Britain only a convoluted mixture of Research Ethics Committees (RECS) exist, of which there are two types; local (LRECs) and multicentre committees (MRECs)6. To this extent it seems appropriate to formalize a form of code, relating to both principle and behavioral practices, which seeks to offer light upon the justification and lawfulness of research. Whilst there is no doubt that this would aide and clarify the scientist in the evaluation of contentious arguments, of which there are many of late; including stem cell research, human cloning and development of biological and chemical weapons, there is also the case for suggesting that this would offer assistance at governmental level7. There are many disparities within various governmental policies, no greater evidenced that within the Bush Administration’s severe reluctance to fund stem cell research and thus by creating a code, which would act as a mediating international reference point, there would at least be some hope of influencing governmental decisions8,9. Moreover the presence of a code relating to principle would be hoped to have the added effect of generating an atmosphere within the working environment wherein scientists would be more prepared, as all colleagues would be working to clear and set standard guideline, to use peer review to monitor their work. This collaborative network would therefore be more likely to identify potent issues, such as was not the case with the teratogenic drug thalidomide which was approved by the FDA, which could possibly result in severe consequences for either the environment or the general population10.