Conduct unbecoming

Biological scientists could soon be compelled to sign up to an international code of conduct to ensure their discoveries are not exploited for the development of biological weapons.The radical proposal, put forward last week by the UK's Royal Society, would set out an ethical framework within which all scientists — not just those involved in potentially sensitive areas — would be expected to work.As well as establishing ground rules for scientists' responsibilities in ensuring their work is not used for the purposes of warfare, it's envisaged the code would also allow for "whistle blowing" on colleagues or bosses.It's also likely that the code, proposals for which are at a very early stage, will include unspecified penalties for those failing to adhere to its principles.But the idea has raised questions about whether responsible scientists need a disciplinary code to remind them of their ethical responsibilities and what kind of scientific work could be construed as potentially dangerous?The Royal Society made the proposal in response to a green paper launched by the UK Government earlier this year. The paper, a discussion document on ways to strengthen the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, called for all interested parties to submit ideas on ways to stop the worldwide spread of expertise and technology on the development of biological weapons.The plan is expected to be submitted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to a meeting in Geneva this week of the 140 signatories of the international convention.Royal Society President Robert May and the head of the US National Academy of Sciences Bruce Alberts warned in a joint editorial in the journal Science last week that individual scientists have a "key role" in combating the threat from biological weapons. "Every researcher, whether in academia, in government research facilities or in industry, needs to be aware of the potential unintended consequences of their own and their colleagues' research," they said.The editorial urged researchers in biological sciences to "take responsibility for helping to prevent the potential misuses of their work."Yet the details of how such a code of conduct would affect researchers on the ground have yet to be established, says Brian Eyre, who chaired the group that put together the Royal Society proposal. "Discussions are at a very early stage but we do recognize that it will have to evolve fairly carefully. It's a question of what checks and balances we can put in place to reduce the risks of information being misused. "This would probably start with the way research is funded and managed, then it would filter down to the responsibilities of supervisors, laboratory directors and individual scientists because they all have a part to play."Eyre says the current system provides no way for worried scientists to alert the authorities if they have concerns about certain types of research. "How do they go about blowing the whistle? This is the kind of thing that will have to be considered but the first thing is to define what the code should include."The Royal Society says it accepts that most scientists work to codes of conduct when it comes to things like laboratory standards and safe working practices. But many are guilty of "considerable ignorance" about agreements such as the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention.Therefore, to ensure the proposed code works, some system of penalties is almost inevitable, says Eyre. "Ultimately, if it's really going to have teeth and be effective then it will have to consider what sanctions to bring to bear, either on organisations or individuals. "But I think it's a good thing because it brings scientists closer to society. To a certain extent science has been seen as remote from society. This a real attempt to make scientists recognize their responsibilities and apply this to their work."Yet it's clear the path ahead is littered with awkward dilemmas. For example, will scientists be expected to shop colleagues who are working on projects specifically intended to explore new warfare methods, or just those that have the potential to be exploited for evil?One key challenge, Eyre predicts, will be to enshrine scientists' ethical obligations within the teaching process. Some countries, he points out, insist all postgraduates writing up their thesis include a chapter on ethical obligations.Peter Cotgreave of lobby group Save British Science says he does not like the idea of having to establish a code of conduct but can see why, in a changing world, there is a need for scientists to be more accountable for their actions, or even inaction. "Part of the job of being a scientist is to be ethical. But we live in a world where we need more and more guidelines for things that we used to think of as common sense. "We used to believe that because people were scientists, doctors or teachers that they did not possess human frailties. But the difference now is that these things already apply to doctors and teachers and there's no reason why scientists should be exempt. "A code of conduct is not a bad idea. At least it means someone can demonstrate that they tried to blow the whistle and it did not work. It also means that frivolous whistle blowers can be dealt with."

Conduct unbecoming

International code of conduct for biological scientists being considered.

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of