Results being linked to market needs is not necessarily incompatible with the pursuit of scientific knowledge. Sound ethical science is based more on uncensored data collection, analysis, publication, and peer review.

Thanks Dr Hessler, I still think that scientists and technologists have to think deeply of the social implications of their findings and application of science may harm very badly Humankind and life on earth in many ways, as we can see today with very unethical use of science and technology affecting life and environment because many scientists lack understanding of the implications of what they do and mainly who is paying their research and how it will be used. I think, we have to asume today more ethical responsibiliy in what we do. It is not just a problem a uncensored data and following a methodological path.. We can become criminals without knowing the meaning of what we do for society and the world. I mean criminals of life, environment and a just, equal and fair society.

These two articles may be useful:

Hausken, K. (1996), “Ethics and Efficiency in Organizations,” International Journal of Social Economics 23, 9, 15-40.

Hausken, K. (1996), “Self-Interest and Sympathy in Economic Behavior,” International Journal of Social Economics 23, 7, 4-24.

Article Ethics and efficiency in organizations

Data Self-Interest and Sympathy in Economic Behavior Internationa...

Thanks very much Kjell I will check both of your article.

Bernardo,

Thank you for your question.

Unfortunately, it looks like it is not answered by scientists who are trained to gather and analyze data but not in ethics. As Doctors of Philosophy, they are eagerly curious and seeking the ultimate truly nature of things and do not have the perspective to understand and take responsibility for the utilization of their work.

Who defines market needs but the society itself? Therefore I don’t understand the opposition there is between the two. If you measure how well you meet the needs of the society by how much money you make (measure utilized all over the world) and how much people are ready to pay to satisfy that need then what science can offer has not much social value. Just compare the contribution of science to the PIB (negative charge) to the contribution of entertainment (multi billion industry). Has a matter of fact most people at best are indifferent to science and mostly don’t like science especially since WWII but are asking for miracles (free) from it when they are desperate.

If you have a little perspective on science, the few people who support it are people in position of power who claim that “knowledge is power” and utilize the creation, accumulation, and conservation of knowledge to reinforce their power, their wealth to control rather than to benefit society. Scientists are just blind (at best by their avidity to satisfy their curiosity) contributors to people who are blind by their avidity of power and wealth. As you well know, to get funding for any research, scientists have to justify it with arguments of its usefulness and research for the sake of knowledge is marginal. Sadly, I’ve never found any ethical part to the proposals besides when a scientist is dealing with “human subjects” and then it is done only administratively rather than with a real sense of humankind toward desperate people.

Can you blame scientists for the deeds of users of the findings? Once the Pandora box is opened, unfortunately, scientists don’t have the power to control the people who are utilizing these findings to develop weapons or ultimately to utilize these weapons. For example, many times I’ve heard people blaming Einstein for the development and utilization of the atomic bomb. Really? Was Einstein unethical as a scientist and a human being? Why the people in power have not heard that “One cannot at the same time prepare war (develop, build, buy weapons) and make peace?” Are scientists the only people who need to have ethics? Who defines ethics? Once I raised the question of ethics. And got the answer that Mafia has also a strong ethic… and it will use all the advances brought by engineers who utilized scientific discoveries based on that ethic.

The myths of gold, power, and knowledge are stronger than the myths of equality, fairness, justice among societies.

Unfortunately, Homo Sapiens is curious and greedy rather than knowledgeable, reasonable, or wise.

To my dismay this important topic is of no interest among Researchgate members. Doctors of Philosophy are lovers of knowledge rather than lovers of wisdom. As it was well described by Jean-Francois Revel, the advent of Cartesians led to the development of the former and the disappearance of the later rather than unifying the two based on the love of the Truth.

To complement my answer, in some recent papers I have noticed a paragraph called “Disclosure of Interest” that might partly answer your question. They appeared recently in scientific papers and more specifically in the pharmaceutical or life science fields. Personally, even though this paragraph is better than nothing, I find it utterly unsatisfactory.

Moreover, besides the most outrageous use of discoveries to defend self-interests or ideologies, it is the use of a scientific methodology to lure people into excesses to satisfy desires or promote their fear and to maintain them into ignorance to satisfy one’s greed.

To be less general, pharmaceutical industries spend far much money into marketing than into research. Further, one could wondered what part of that money spent into research actually goes to develop better treatments rather than researching on new marketing technics based on neurosciences. As a matter of fact, pharmacists have dated the inception of their field at the inception of chemistry. Indeed, during WWII Germans have outlawed the preparation and sale of herbal medicine. After WWII the French parliament abolished almost all outrageous laws passed during the occupation by the Germans but that one. Why?

How many effective traditional knowledge has been censored on the basis of not been scientifically proven? To this day, pharmaceutical industry is still discrediting, among other alternative/non allopathic, homeopathy on the basis that its effectiveness has not been proven scientifically. Pasteur was bitterly fought against by established physicians, etc… Indeed some scientists are ignorant but worse some are close minded and unable to learn about History or Nature.

Unfortunately, governments with the assistance of a few “scientists” are accomplice of all this, since they have discredited traditional knowledge after stealing the essence of it and are responsible for the lack of education of their people about the dangers of excesses and about teaching what is really useful to them. For example, food industry will promote appealing but unhealthy food and pharmaceutical industry will promote pills against obesity and the government will not finance research about the dangers of sugar nor educate his citizens about dietetics. Physicians don’t educate their patients and don’t care about their Hippocrates’ woes: “First do no harm”. One cannot blame them since they are not trained to consider people has a whole but as collection of organs, since they are not educated in pharmaceutics however they are to be blamed since Hippocrates also said: “Your food shall be your first medicine”. Who has ever heard his physician making a recommendation about a diet rather than making a prescription of pills?

That is just one simple example than many people can understand and that have an impact on every single one.

In another discussion, I have addressed the issue about the utilization of novel fields that have fallen under the scrutiny of some “scientists” rather than Doctors of Philosophy. What for? To whom it will benefit? What are the risks? The questions have been void of answers…

Unless humankind learns to be wiser has a whole there is a great danger of making new discoveries, developing new knowledges, or technologies.