What's the Professor Got to Do with It?

In February 1975 a "by-invitation-only" group of molecular biologists met at the Asilomar Conference Center in California to forge a consensus for a system of scientific self-regulation of recombinant DNA research. The meeting occurred after several prominent scientists had called for a voluntary moratorium on DNA research because it involved the use of potentially hazardous recombinant organisms (Krimsky 1982; Wright 2001). From the viewpoint of scientists the conference was "an exceptional event" at which they "voluntarily sacrificed immediate progress in their research in order to ensure that their field would develop safely." A different view of the event is that it represented "an effort on the part of organizers to construct an ideology to support the development of a field that promised to be socially disruptive" (Wright, 236).

The conference organizers excluded from the proceedings critical discussion of the "[L]arger ethical issues regarding the purposes and the long-term goals" of recombinant DNA research (Weiner 1999, 3). Indeed, grappling with the social implications of this type of bioscientific research—for example, the development of biological weapons and of genetically engineered humans and animals—would have undermined the participants' goal of persuading the public and government regulators that scientists could act responsibly and were capable of self-governance (Wright 2001).

It is doubtful that had conference participants taken a course in research ethics they would have been more willing to discuss whether and where to draw the line with genetic engineering; scientists at Asilomar were perfectly aware of the ethical dimensions of their research. Because they did not want to talk about the ends of genetic engineering, they attempted to silence and marginalize those at the conference who tried to raise these issues (Krimsky 1982; Weiner 1999; Wright 2001).

Over 25 years after Asilomar, Arri Eisen and Roberta M. Berry's (2002) call for teaching research ethics to bioscientists raises interesting questions about how the "pedagogy of ethics" affects the scientific enterprise and its impact on the well-being of humans, other living beings, and the environments in which they coexist.

Eisen and Berry contend that a confluence of several factors necessitates the development of formal ethics education in the biosciences: increased scrutiny and regulation of the scientific enterprise, the societal impact of basic research, growth in public and private funding for research, increased diversity of scientists and of collaborative arrangements, successful and rapid scientific advances, and high-profile accounts of scientific misconduct.

Growth in public and private funding for research raises questions about conflicts of interest as scientists negotiate the terrain of public-private partnerships involving patents, royalties, and other financial and nontangible benefits associated with developing blockbuster drugs or other technological applications. Successful and rapid scientific advances in the biosciences and the rewards they bring may lead to irresponsible and unethical behavior in the rush to find a new cure or in the race for the Nobel Prize. Acting responsibly and ethically in collecting, analyzing, and publishing data is of paramount importance in maintaining the integrity of the research enterprise. Moreover, rapid advances in science often outpace thoughtful deliberation about the ends of science and of the impact of biotechnologies on humans, other living beings, and the environment.

Less clear is what the recent increase in the diversity of scientists and collaborative arrangements has to do with the need to teach research ethics. To make the leap that nonwhites (foreign born?), women, and foreign nationals bring to the scientific enterprise "different ways of perceiving and knowing," "different styles of communication," and "different assumptions and commitments" is at best speculative. Even if data were available to back such claims, how these factors are connected to the ethical dimensions of bioscientific research is not obvious.

What is obvious is that at the turn of the twenty-first century the scientific enterprise has come under intense public scrutiny and is facing increased government regulation. Eisen and Berry's...