Setting standards for scientists

From the Hippocratic Oath to the Russell–Einstein Manifesto, from Maimonides’ Oath to the Declaration of Geneva (the Physician’s Oath), human history reveals an abundance of pledges, guidelines and laws to regulate the relationship between professionals and society. However, increasing concerns about the new and emerging ethical aspects of biomedical research, and its potential for abuse, have led to a surge of ethical debates and their translation into a new, globally accepted codification. By virtue of its function in setting standards and its advocacy of universal norms and values, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO; Paris, France) is well placed to address the ethical dimensions of debates about progress in science and technology and the principles on which a ‘knowledge society’ might be built. UNESCO therefore reinforces its normative mission by promoting ethical principles for scientific and technological progress and by encouraging education in ethics. The primary reason for developing an ethical code is to reinforce society’s trust in scientists by explicitly connecting the basic values of science to the ideals of social responsibility and accountability. However, ethics is not an alibi. Private and public organizations and individuals should not use ethics as a façade to give their activities greater credibility or legitimacy. As stated by Koïchiro Matsuura, DirectorGeneral of UNESCO, in Bangkok, Thailand, on 23 March 2005, during the opening ceremony of the Third Session of the World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST), new scientific discoveries are a source of wonder and pride. Their application in and through technological innovations brings many benefits, and in the process transforms how we live and work (UNESCO, 2005a). However, the twenty-first century does not have a naive or simple view of scientific and technological progress. On the contrary, there is mounting concern about the possible adverse consequences of scientific development in general and certain scientific advances in particular. If left unattended, this concern could undermine popular support for, and trust in, the whole enterprise of modern science.