ABSTRACT
This paper investigates the ethical implications of applying open science (OS) practices on disruptive technologies, such as generative AIs. Disruptive technologies, characterized by their scalability and paradigm-shifting nature, have the potential to generate significant global impact, and carry a risk of dual use. The tension arises between the moral duty of OS to promote societal benefit by democratizing knowledge and the risks associated with open dissemination of disruptive technologies. Van Rennselaer Potter's 'third bioethics' serves as the founding horizon for an ethical framework to govern these tensions. Through theoretical analysis and concrete examples, this paper explores how OS can contribute to a better future or pose threats. Finally, we provide an ethical framework for the intersection between OS and disruptive technologies that tries to go beyond the simple 'as open as possible' tenet, considering openness as an instrumental value for the pursuit of other ethical values rather than as a principle with prima facie moral significance.
Subject(s)
Bioethics , Science , Technology , Humans , Technology/ethics , Science/ethics , Moral Obligations , Ethical Theory , Knowledge , MoralsABSTRACT
In this paper, I develop and defend a moralized conception of epistemic trust in science against a particular kind of non-moral account defended by John (2015, 2018). I suggest that non-epistemic value considerations, non-epistemic norms of communication and affective trust properly characterize the relationship of epistemic trust between scientific experts and non-experts. I argue that it is through a moralized account of epistemic trust in science that we can make sense of the deep-seated moral undertones that are often at play when non-experts (dis)trust science.
Subject(s)
Communication , Knowledge , Morals , Science , Trust , Humans , Science/ethicsABSTRACT
Despite the profound impacts of scientific research, few scientists have received the necessary training to productively discuss the ethical and societal implications of their work. To address this critical gap, we-a group of predominantly human genetics trainees-developed a course on genetics, ethics, and society. We intend for this course to serve as a template for other institutions and scientific disciplines. Our curriculum positions human genetics within its historical and societal context and encourages students to evaluate how societal norms and structures impact the conduct of scientific research. We demonstrate the utility of this course via surveys of enrolled students and provide resources and strategies for others hoping to teach a similar course. We conclude by arguing that if we are to work toward rectifying the inequities and injustices produced by our field, we must first learn to view our own research as impacting and being impacted by society.
Subject(s)
Curriculum , Science , Humans , Science/education , Science/ethics , Biomedical Research , GeneticsSubject(s)
Ethics , National Socialism , Prejudice , Publishing , Humans , Ethics/history , Ethics, Medical/history , Germany , History, 20th Century , Medicine , National Socialism/history , Prejudice/ethics , Prejudice/ethnology , Prejudice/history , Propaganda , Publishing/ethics , Publishing/history , Publishing/standards , Science/ethics , Science/history , Systemic Racism/ethics , Systemic Racism/ethnology , Systemic Racism/history , United States , Human Rights/ethics , Human Rights/historySubject(s)
Armed Conflicts , Diplomacy , International Cooperation , Politics , Science , Arctic Regions , Armed Conflicts/history , Diplomacy/ethics , Diplomacy/history , Diplomacy/organization & administration , Diplomacy/trends , International Cooperation/history , International Cooperation/legislation & jurisprudence , Russia , Science/ethics , Science/history , Science/organization & administration , Science/trendsABSTRACT
En este editorial se exploran los posibles riesgos que representa el uso de la inteligencia artificial para la elaboración de trabajos académicos y científicos. Además, se presenta una lista de riesgos para la investigación científica elaborada por la plataforma ChatGPT con el objetivo de explorar su precisión en la generación de textos.
This editorial explores the possible risks posed by the use of artificial intelligence for the preparation of academic and scientific work. Additionally, a list of risks for scientific research is presented by the ChatGPT platform with the aim of exploring its accuracy in generating texts.
Subject(s)
Humans , Artificial Intelligence/trends , Artificial Intelligence/ethics , Science/ethics , Information Science/trendsABSTRACT
Guidelines concerning the potentially harmful effects of scientific studies have historically focused on ethical considerations for minimizing risk for participants. However, studies can also indirectly inflict harm on individuals and social groups through how they are designed, reported, and disseminated. As evidenced by recent criticisms and retractions of high-profile studies dealing with a wide variety of social issues, there is a scarcity of resources and guidance on how one can conduct research in a socially responsible manner. As such, even motivated researchers might publish work that has negative social impacts due to a lack of awareness. To address this, we propose 10 simple rules for researchers who wish to conduct socially responsible science. These rules, which cover major considerations throughout the life cycle of a study from inception to dissemination, are not aimed as a prescriptive list or a deterministic code of conduct. Rather, they are meant to help motivated scientists to reflect on their social responsibility as researchers and actively engage with the potential social impact of their research.
Subject(s)
Science , Social Responsibility , Humans , Publishing , Science/ethicsSubject(s)
Artificial Intelligence , Publishing , Science , Writing , Artificial Intelligence/ethics , Artificial Intelligence/legislation & jurisprudence , Artificial Intelligence/trends , Ethics, Research , Publishing/ethics , Publishing/legislation & jurisprudence , Publishing/standards , Science/ethics , Science/methods , Science/standards , Writing/standards , Authorship/standardsSubject(s)
Federal Government , Politics , Public Policy , Science , United States , Science/ethics , Science/legislation & jurisprudence , Science/standardsSubject(s)
Periodicals as Topic , Racism , Science , Editorial Policies , Racism/prevention & control , Science/ethicsABSTRACT
Mandatory pledge will be part of Ph.D. defense.
Subject(s)
Codes of Ethics , Research Personnel , Science , France , Research Personnel/ethics , Science/ethicsABSTRACT
Science, particularly in life sciences and biotechnologies, is continuing to make remarkable progress in the past decade. This has been possible due to the governments and people recognizing that scientific discoveries bring development and prosperity to the nation. The new trend in research is to collaborate across disciplines with large teams of participants across the globe. This has brought success but has led to varying standards in ethics and responsible conduct which require harmonization. Recent discoveries point to a need for new approaches to ethics. The rise in cases of misconduct and retraction of research papers from high-profile individuals has been a cause for concern. It is encouraging that many countries that have detected misconduct in research have instituted strong steps to correct the situation. This brief review discusses the recent developments of interest to me, the issues of global research, ethics and responsible conduct.
Subject(s)
Science/trends , Scientific Misconduct/ethics , Humans , Science/ethics , Scientific Misconduct/psychology , Scientific Misconduct/trendsSubject(s)
COVID-19 , Politics , Science/legislation & jurisprudence , Science/organization & administration , Security Measures , COVID-19/epidemiology , CRISPR-Cas Systems , China , Disaster Planning/organization & administration , Humans , International Cooperation , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , Policy Making , Prejudice/prevention & control , Research Support as Topic/organization & administration , Science/ethics , Science/standards , United States/epidemiologyABSTRACT
The ISSCR's revised Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation reflect the organization's commitment to opposing premature commercialization of stem cell-based interventions and supporting the development of products that meet stringent ethical, scientific, and regulatory standards. The Guidelines contain five important new recommendations concerning clinical translation of stem cell products.