I think it's because scientists are aware that we are humans, we must co-exist with plants and animals, and earth is our only home, we need to be careful about mankind and the environment.  So here are some ethical issues that concern us all, not just scientists, do you agree?

A Short List of Ethical Issues in Science

Nuclear Energy: Should we pursue new nuclear technologies and building second generation nuclear power plants?

Human Cloning and Therapeutic Cloning

Animal Cloning

Food Irradiation

Stem Cell Research

Nanotechnology

Genetically Modified Crops (GMCs)

Medical Research Using Live Animals

Research Into Extending the Human Lifespan

Genetic Engineering

Eugenics (designer babies, who should have children, etc.)

Artificial Human Organs and Selling of Human Organs

www.grossmont.edu/johnoakes/.../Oral%20Ethics%20Presentation.doc

http://reilly.nd.edu/outreach/emerging-ethical-dilemmas-and-policy-issues-in-science-and-technology/

I am convinced that this topic is so sensitive because society does not have an informed opinion and therefore still has to find a consensus. Again, this is a question of hierarchy of values: is the life of a frozen embryo more important than a cure for a disease? A moratorium to suspend research using human embryonic cells must include both the public and private domains since to allow the latter to continue would be true hypocrisy. Of course, no restriction should be imposed on research using adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells isolated from animals. But I think it would be difficult to establish such a moratorium for several reasons. First, it should be respected all over the world and not only in some nations. Secondly, it would be difficult to reach a consensus on a moratorium since patient associations and the industrial sector would certainly lobby for the continuation of this research. Thirdly, we should recognize that scientists have an intellectual, but also a practical interest, since results may be obtained more easily with embryonic rather than adult stem cells. Finally, a moratorium would not be an ethically neutral option, since it may delay the possibility of curing patients. Although a moratorium is probably not realistic, it is necessary to find solutions that take into account the ethical problems of all sectors of society.

Yes, dear Sribas. Scientists now expected to be so much more ethically sensitive than they used to be. This is due to the internet usage growth and also to building and maintaing ethics culture among researchers. 

In addition to that, most universities now have plagiarism detection software that is designed to be used by researchers to ensure the originality of written work before publication.

Ithink it is related to many issues one is the culture  second the awareness and third is the legal reponsibilty

Scientists now expected to be so much more ethically sensitive than they used to be because Influence of science on society and production of knowledge has been rapidly increased in recent years with advancement of technology and media.

A relevant article is attached.

 Why Must Scientists become More Ethically Sensitive Than They Used to be?

John Ziman, Science, New Series, Vol. 282, No. 5395. (Dec. 4, 1998), pp. 1813-1814

I think it's because scientists are aware that we are humans, we must co-exist with plants and animals, and earth is our only home, we need to be careful about mankind and the environment.  So here are some ethical issues that concern us all, not just scientists, do you agree?

A Short List of Ethical Issues in Science

Nuclear Energy: Should we pursue new nuclear technologies and building second generation nuclear power plants?

Human Cloning and Therapeutic Cloning

Animal Cloning

Food Irradiation

Stem Cell Research

Nanotechnology

Genetically Modified Crops (GMCs)

Medical Research Using Live Animals

Research Into Extending the Human Lifespan

Genetic Engineering

Eugenics (designer babies, who should have children, etc.)

Artificial Human Organs and Selling of Human Organs

www.grossmont.edu/johnoakes/.../Oral%20Ethics%20Presentation.doc

http://reilly.nd.edu/outreach/emerging-ethical-dilemmas-and-policy-issues-in-science-and-technology/

Dear Sribas, 

From my personal ground as qualitative researcher, I do not observe radical needs  for more ethics, indicated by other social scientists in the area of my interests (disabilities). Ethical considerations are postulated world - wide  for many decades. Besides, constructionism, interpretivisms as epistemological choices grounded in research projects' frameworks always require comprehensive ethical considerations. I mean long field participation while data collections ethics and general ethical responsibility in the fields. Ethics is also present while ensuring the proper level of credibility of the qual research. So concluding, I do not notice radical changes, but rather evolutions of scientific thougths within paradigms. 

I don't see many ethics reflected in society. It's more a continent on drift. That will not say that many scientists  are not alert to  ethics and are ethical much refined. The problem is more laying in the applications. 

Dear Sribas,

Dear All,

I think scientists have been always ethically sensitive. Somebody who tries to think and investigates the things and events around him/her must be like that. The raisons may be various: firstly as Miranda listed many controversial and dangerous (ethically and practically as well) and commercially “valuable” subjects, fields appeared. Mass media (and behind them political and economic interests) dictate demands for the science. Results of democratisation and internet opportunities made possible that scientists could address each other and the audience. RG is such an opportunity.

Thus, the traditional opinion or viewpoint of scientists to ethics might not have been changed but the environment and opportunities are better to distribute them.

This is a  very good question indeed.Scientists  ought to be highly ethical because  they must have learnt that the right or the correct ultimately prevails & because they were given the chance to acquire knowledge which can be used as a power of evil if not managed very well. Yesterday, I threw a forged coin in the dustbin, which was given to me by some strange person. Surely, it was made by some gang with the help of some dishonest  scientist because it was made  in a professional way, When scientists lose ethics, there will be damage everywhere not only in a confined region.

The good list  given by Miranda clearly shows that  with the advancement of science , ethical issues have become more sensitive and important. The other aspect is the raising of scientists and public awareness due to discoveries of abuses in scientific research in recent years.

Much of the investment in science in this century has been motivated by wars (World Wars I & II, the Cold War, and numerous other military interventions).

This use of human and financial resources is one factor that has helped focus the attention on ethics in science, and it is clear that since the Second World War, the interest in ethics in science has increased tremendously.

Another factor is the discovery of concrete abuses of power in scientific experimentation, such as the experimentation carried out by the Nazi doctors, the sterilisation of retarded or otherwise unwanted citizens in Sweden, the fatal radiation experiments in the United States, or various scandals involving disclosures of fraud, falsification of research material, or other forms of scientific misconduct.

http://www.icsu.org/publications/reports-and-reviews/standards-responsibility-science/SCRES-Background.pdf

Conflicts between scientific progress and ethics are not so rare and scientists must be aware, more sensitive to this issues! " Should scientists care about the ethical implications of their research? Should scientific progress ever be halted on the basis of ethical concerns? Should scientists have ethical training? If so, what would their ethical training be like? How should scientists respond to ethical concerns when there is so much controversy about what is ethical and what is not ethical? How can anyone know what is ethically acceptable and what is ethically wrong when there is deep disagreement? If there is deep disagreement, with no uncontroversial position in sight, why should scientists try to satisfy ethicists?" Wonderful discussion about is attached!

http://thequestion.blogs.wvu.edu/questions/2009/12/1/what-role-should-ethics-play-in-science-

Because what science dictates now becomes a legal obligation tomorrow, so a scientist must be careful in his/her declarations and not to write whatever he thinks without taking into account the consequences. This is not a barrier in scientific freedom, but rather a more responsible behaviour from scientists.

This is so because there is a genuine threat of materialistic values corroding the moral fabric of  society in the present era of globalization, where money, competition, winning, performance, quantity, efficiency, etc are becoming more important than before. In this race, we may leave behind our ethical duties and weaken the foundations of human working and living. 

I think it is because science or scientists have now come to the attention of many cultures, peoples and societies, diversifying the perspective of what scientists must and must not research.

In Social Sciences research,  on a large social network studies, there is no necessity for a participant-informed consent. Instance such as "one Facebook study", where going to lab and analyzing the strength of the connections between one person and their friends or connections means getting information about  others without their consent. It’s a very, very ethically sensitive area.

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/the-report/how-the-new-field-of-data-science-is-grappling-with-ethics/

Sribas,

If your question is WHY "scientists can no longer claim that science is neutral but must consider the ethical and social aspects of their work", then I'd say the primary reason is because they and their work have been challenged by folks unhappy with both research methods and consequences. In the European Middle Ages, it may have been primarily priests who were unhappy with challenges posed by scientists to religious doctrine, but today - since the wholesale subordination of science to capitalist industry - it is a broad spectrum of people who are unhappy with the resulting actual and/or potential effects on their lives. And, as those unhappy people have investigated the nature of the research that has produced those effects, they have extended their questioning and protests from effects to research methods, sources of funding, and the influences that have shaped both. If we scan Miranda's list of "ethical issues" in science (to which we could add many others), it should be obvious that most ARE issues because the activities and consequences associated with them have been found noxious and attacked by so many people as to form whole movements, e.g., the Anti-GMO, Animal Rights or Anti-nuclear Power Movements. These ethical issues are not just "in science" but have been raised by millions who are not professional scientists but are critical of the activities of those who are, and the consequences of their work. 

The inner good which produces outer beauty is very well said Francesca.