Practice of science

Lectures 7: Ethics in Biology Research and Education

November 27, 2018

SHARE THIS

Editors note: This lecture is part of a series of lectures Prof. Kambadur Muralidhar gave at the University of Hyderabad in 2017, that he kindly shared with Club Sciwri. We will be publishing all the lectures, in parts, over the coming months.

“Science and Society” makes a good topic for debate and discussion. To debate this point, one should understand the nature of science and the reasons for the perceived conflict with society. Science in the modern sense arose in Europe as part of the Renaissance movement. The philosophy of modern science has been described by many great minds especially Francis Bacon, René Descartes and Karl Popper. Through colonial rule, this form of science was introduced to the rest of the world. However the basic curiosity to know and learn was part of every civilization. Philosophical traditions in every society arose when men and women organized into settled societies after the discovery of agriculture 10000 years ago. There was a division of functions among the inhabitants. A small percentage of such societies indulged in reflective thinking. The questions and problems they addressed were either real time (i.e. materialistic about Physical Nature/Environment and human behavior) or supernatural, dealing with ideas such as life after death and the relationship between living and dead beings. Great religions arose out of these philosophical deliberations. It is only during the Renaissance movement, that focus shifted entirely to the materialistic world around us. This inquiry was named Natural Science.

Natural Science was practiced following the scientific method. The body of knowledge that resulted and the process of gaining information itself were together termed as Modern Science or western science. It was a new kind of philosophy constrained by both the phenomena that were studied and the methodology used for the inquiry. Science in its modern sense only had one aim until the seventeenth century which was to understand the structure and functioning of Nature. René Descartes, the French mathematician and the first philosopher of science added one more aim, emphatically, and that was that science should be useful to man. From then on “Fundamental science” and “Application oriented science” (or even technology) became the twin parts of Science. Hence it was called Science & Technology from then on. Natural science comprised three branches i.e. Physics, Chemistry and Biology. Each of these had the single aim of knowing the ‘TRUTH’ about Nature, akin to any other system of Philosophy.

Every organized society has a set of myths or beliefs, which in the form of narratives and mythological stories give rise to customs, traditions and rituals. Together, these contribute to ‘Culture’.

Science had given rise to another culture, which appeared to be in conflict with the existing culture not only in the ruled colonies but also in the land of rulers such as England, France etc. In the 19th and 20th centuries, Science & Technology practically dictated the development plans for different Nations including South Asian countries. The national budget share for science & technology related activities attracted social auditing of this enterprise called science. Sociologists in particular and society in general appeared to be in conflict with Science as a Culture and Philosophy. The conflict was particularly acute in the perceived confrontation between Religion and Science. It was all due to misunderstanding of true science on one hand and true religion on the other hand. Both are spiritual pursuits in reality. Analysis of all successful animal and plant groups make us realize that conflict and cooperation is their characteristic feature. All conflicts have to be and can be resolved. Taking adversarial positions does not lead to solutions. Informed discussions alone will lead to conflict resolution and hence the survival of the societies in question. In the words of Vannewar Bush, Science is ‘amoral’ i.e. neither moral nor immoral. It is man who misuses science & technology and misinterprets science to general public and that aggravates this perceived conflict. South Asian countries being rich in religious traditions have witnessed this conflict as well. We have to solve this problem with native wisdom which is non-confrontational in nature, and which seeks peace and harmony in the society.

The biological basis of ethics can be traced to many animal groups (ants, wasps, tigers etc.) who exhibit eusociality, where societal good takes precedence over individual benefit.

In different periods of history, eminent sociologists and philosophers have written about and advocated expected social conduct from citizens (e.g. Manu’s Smriti in Sanskrit, Thirukkural by Thiruvalluvar in Tamil, Koran by Mohammad, the great Prophet in Arabic, Confucius in China etc.). There happen to be no universally accepted ethical norms across different societies and across different situations within one society. Statements like “everything is fair in love and war” or “ends do not justify means” have only added to the confusion in debates about ethics. While swabhavika dharma should dictate human behavioral norms and judgments, Science- being an organized activity in the search of ‘TRUTH’, has a mandatory set of norms, summarized as scientific temper and written in the form of scientific methods, which must be followed by every practicing scientist. In practice however, this is not followed by the majority. The reasons for this deviant behavior can be found in the way scientific activity is structured. Science is practiced in structured departments, centers, professional societies etc. and rarely by individual scientists in isolation. Science, especially experimental science is largely dependent on public and private funded projects. Further, scientists receive various awards and recognition from their own scientific societies and society in general. Peer-pressure is another influence on scientists. All these factors may induce unethical behavior among scientists- both workers and leaders- and this happens for individual benefit, at the cost of social good. This contradicts the demands of a scientific temper. These puzzling behavioral patterns can be observed at all strata of scientific establishments, i.e. award of Nobel Prizes, selection of teaching faculty, admission of students, funding of project proposals, providing physical and material support to working scientists, practice of institutional goals etc. Biology in particular, faces another ethical dilemma unique to this Natural science. This pertains to the resolution of conflict of interests among scientists themselves. Three particular cases are important for our consideration in this context involving the conflict of interest between: 1. Animal rights & ethics societies, 2. Conflict between preserving biodiversity and use of biologically derived products for human welfare, 3. Environmentalists and Industrial/Technological development.

Appropriate solutions have to be allowed to evolve.

Author

Prof. Kambadur Muralidhar is an Indian biologist, known for his work in biochemistry, endocrinology and reproductive biology. He taught at Delhi University for over thirty years, and was Head of its Department of Zoology. Currently, he is Jawaharlal Nehru Chair Professor, School of Life Sciences, University of Hyderabad. He is a Fellow of the Indian National Science Academy, the Indian Academy of Sciences, and the National Academy of Sciences, India. He is also highly regarded as a teacher and educator, and has contributed to biology education at both high school and college levels.

Editors

Roopsha Sengupta, PhD and Arunima Singh, PhD edited the article.

Roopsha did her PhD in the Institute of Molecular Pathology, Vienna and postdoctoral research at the University of Cambridge UK, specializing in the field of Epigenetics. Besides science and words, she enjoys spending time with children, doodling, and singing.

Arunima obtained her PhD from the University of Georgia, and is currently a postdoctoral researcher at the New York University. A computational structural biologist by training, she enjoys traveling, reading, and the process of mastering new cuisines in her spare time. Her motivation to move to New York was to be a part of this rich scientific, cultural, and social hub.

Artist

Ipsa designed the cover image. She is a post-doctoral fellow at Instem, Bangalore. She tries to communicate science through visual arts as a medium. Collecting graphic books, tree trash, and reading brain pickings is few of her favourites. Follow and purchase her artwork at Ipsawonders (Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram). She will be happy to hear praises and non-praises at ipsajain.31@gmail.com.

Other images in the blog courtesy Pixabay.

Blog design: Arunima Singh

The contents of Club SciWri are the copyright of PhD Career Support Group for STEM PhDs (A US Non-Profit 501(c)3, PhDCSG is an initiative of the alumni of the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. The primary aim of this group is to build a NETWORK among scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs).

This work by Club SciWri is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License