Three s — pure scientists, applied scientists/technologists, and users — each bear distinct ethical responsibilities. Responsibility does not disappear by being passed down the chain.
Two moral principles in tension underpin most ethical codes of conduct:
: some actions are absolutely prohibited because they use persons as mere instruments
: some harm is acceptable if benefits clearly outweigh it
Both converge on the requirement for . The Nuremberg Code (1947) established this as foundational in response to Nazi medical experiments; the Declaration of Helsinki (2022) extended it.
— harm to knowledge quality — can cascade into physical harm. The Wakefield MMR/autism case shows how a single inadequately evidenced paper contributed to measles outbreaks. and s (honesty, carefulness, transparency) guard against this.
Ethics of omission: what scientists choose not to investigate matters as much as what they do. Research agendas are shaped by commercial viability — orphan diseases are underinvestigated; Thalidomide was approved with insufficient animal testing.
Case study: Oppenheimer vs. Rotblat — both faced the same choice on the Manhattan Project and reached different conclusions. Both positions are ethically serious; neither is obviously wrong.