baibakova_i_gasko_o_fedorishin_m_red_getting_on_in_english_i

Text A

To argue that scientists have no moral responsibility for the use or misuse of their discoveries oversimplifies the issue. It ignores the fact that top-level research scientists are not ordinary people. Since their duty is to do no basic harm to the society in which they live, which has trained them and by which their research is. funded, they should suppress those scientific discoveries which might be misused, and which ordinary people do not know about.

There are a number of reasons for this. In the first place scientists are, as indivi­ duals or as members of a research team, in a position to know what is going on at a given moment in their field, nationally and internationally. They are in a position to know what has been discovered, and in which field crucial discoveries are likely to be made.

Therefore, acting individually, or together with their fellow-workers, scientists possess invaluable information which should be made known to their fellow citizens if it has, or may have, a direct bearing on their well-being.

As privileged citizens, and members of powerful international elite, scientists are also in a position to fight for the suppression of potentially harmful discoveries. To suppress dangerous inventions does not only mean to conceal them. On the contrary, by revealing, or bringing them out into the open, which they have the knowledge and the professional authority to do, scientists can enable informed decisions to be made by their fellow citizens as a body. This is surely preferable to such decisions remaining secret, to being the target of scientific espionage, or to being in the hands of irresponsible political or military rulers in pursuit of dangerous policies.

Furthermore, only the scientists - the experts in their special fields of research - have the knowledge, skill, and insight on, which judgements relating to the latent use, or the consequences of use, of new products and processes can be adequately made. A disastrous moral judgement is more likely to be made by uninformed politicians, than by well-informed experts, able to consult with colleagues in other fields at the highest level.

It is not that one is entitled to expect scientists to have a higher brand of morality than their fellow-citizens. But in so far as knowledge constitutes power, scientists are powerful. Therefore their moral decisions, and thereby their duty, must be more carefully considered in all their implications.

As privileged members of society, scientists have an underlying obligation to reveal information about potentially harmful discoveries, to enable their fellow-citizens to anticipate danger and to decide what to do about them. It is easier, surely, to convene an executive committee to decide on the manufacture of a new and potentially lethal gas, than to replace lost lives. After all, dead citizens cannot vote.

In short, scientists do have a direct and special duty to their fellow-men. They cannot avoid this responsibility by maintaining that someone else should do it. If, to take an example, they are powerful enough to convince a government to ban alcohol or drugs, they are powerful enough to influence the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

A scientist is not isolated from society. He or she is also a moral being with a social conscience. Knowing more than ordinary people, scientists should be the first people to expose the misuse of scientific discoveries endangering the lives and suiToundings of their fellow-citizens.

(Adaptedfrom the Internet)

Text В

When we talk of the moral responsibilities of scientists we mean nothing more than that they have a duty to do no fundamental harm to the society in which they live. Since they share this duty with everyone else - insurance men, teachers, civil servants, manual labourers, farmers - one assumes that they are singled out for special mention first because they are a new phenomenon (97 per cent of all the full-time scientists who ever lived are still alive) and secondly because of their disproportionate power to help or harm society. Society’s fear of the scientist is not irrational; for society is conservative, backward-looking and intent for preserving the status quo, while the scientist is radical, forward-looking, and by his or her discoveries likely to change the material environment of society. Since scientists threaten the established order in this way, they are, by our previous definition, immoral. The usual charge levelled at scientists is that they ought to, and do not, suppress those discoveries of which a harmful use might be made.

This naive accusation, however, reveals a basic ignorance about how scientists work. In the first place discoveries are not usually the work of one person, but of a team. Splitting the atom, the example to which any discussion of science and morality inevitably leads, is a case in point.

Another is penicillin, which we owe partly to Fleming and partly to those who took up his work and made production a practical possibility. Secondly, scientific advances are not made in a vacuum. One advance follows the other, and each leap forward opens up new fields for further research. Science is a chain reaction, and it might be disastrous to suppress a discovery, however trivial, which might one day be a vital missing link. Thirdly, discoveries have an uncanny habit of being made almost simultaneously by scientists working independently of each other in different parts of the world, so that one is tempted to believe that each advance becomes due at a particular moment and if not made by one person will be made by another. It is futile to ask a scientist to conceal his discoveries, because they are not his alone; he has worked in concert with others and even if by superhuman effort and diplomacy a whole team of scientists could be persuaded to keep them secret, they would soon be discovered and taken up elsewhere.

In any case who would be bold enough to set himself up as an authority capable of deciding what is harmful and what is helpful to society? Arsenic can be used to poison rats or misused to poison people; atomic power to warm the world or to blow it up. The scientists who made possible the heating and lighting of houses by gas can hardly be blamed for failing to foresee the use Hitler would make of their discovery.

The truth is that it is the ordinary man and woman who use or misuse the discoveries of science. As members of society, scientists have a responsibility to see that they are put to proper use (a special responsibility because they know more about them

than other people), but as scientists, their duty is to discover as much as they can about people and the universe. The use that may be made of the discoveries of scientists is not a responsibility that can be shuffled on to them. It rests squarely on the shoulders of society.

(Adaptedfrom the Internet)

Task 6.32. Read the two texts. Write an outline of the first text and answer the questions to the second one.

RESPONDING TO VIOLATIONS OF ETHICAL STANDARDS

One of the most difficult situations that a researcher can encounter is to see or suspect that a colleague has violated the ethical standards of the research community. It is easy to find excuses to do nothing, but someone who has witnessed misconduct has an unmistakable obligation to act. At the most immediate level, misconduct can seriously obstruct or damage one’s own research or the research of colleagues. More broadly, even a single case of misconduct can malign scientists and their institutions, result in the imposition of counterproductive regulations, and shake public confidence in the integrity of science.

To be sure, raising a concern about unethical conduct is rarely an easy thing to do. In some cases, anonymity is possible - but not always. Reprisals by the accused person and by skeptical colleagues have occurred in the past and have had serious consequences. Any allegation of misconduct is a very important charge that needs to be taken seriously. If mishandled, an allegation can gravely damage the person charged, the one who makes the charge, the institutions involved, and science in general.

Someone who is confronting a problem involving research ethics usually has more options than are immediately apparent. In most cases the best thing to do is to discuss the situation, with a trusted friend or advisor. In universities, faculty advisors, department chairs, and other senior faculty can be invaluable sources of advice in deciding whether to go forward with a complaint.

An important consideration is deciding when to put a complaint in writing. Once in writing, universities are obligated to deal with a complaint in a more formal manner than if it is made verbally. Putting a complaint in writing can have serious consequences for the career of a scientist and should be undertaken only after thorough consideration.

The National Science Foundation and Public Health Service of the USA require all research institutions that receive public funds to have procedures in place to deal with allegations of unethical practice. These procedures take into account fairness for the accused, protection for the accuser, coordination with funding agencies, and requirements for confidentiality and disclosure.

In addition, many universities and other research institutions have designated an ombudsman, ethics officer, or other official who is available to discuss situations involving research ethics. Such discussions are carried out in strictest confidence whenever possible. Some institutions provide for multiple entry points, so that complainants can go to a person with whom they feel comfortable.

Government agencies, including the National Science Foundation and Public Health Service, enforce laws and regulations that deal with misconduct in science. At the Public Health Service in Washington, D.C., complaints can be referred to the

appropriate office through the Office of Research Integrity. At the National Science Foundation in Arlington, Virginia, complaints can be directed to the Office of the Inspector General. Within universities, research grant officials can provide guidance on whether federal rules may be involved in filing a complaint.

Many institutions have prepared written materials that offer guidance in situations involving professional ethics. Volume II of Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process (National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 199З) reprints a number of these documents. Sigma Xi, a national society of research scientists headquartered in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C., and other scientific and engineering professional organizations also are prepared to advise scientists who encounter cases of possible misconduct.

The research system exerts many pressures on beginning and experienced researchers alike. Principal investigators need to raise funds and attract students. Faculty members must balance the time spent on research with the time spent teaching undergraduates. Industrial sponsorship of research introduces the possibility of conflicts of interest.

All parts of the research system have a responsibility to recognize and respond to these pressures. Institutions must review their own policies, foster awareness of research ethics, and ensure that researchers are aware of the policies that are in place. And researchers should constantly be aware of the extent to which ethically based decisions will influence their success as scientists.

(Adaptedfrom the Internet)

A CAREER IN THE BALANCE

Francine was just months away from finishing her Ph.D. dissertation when she realized that something was seriously amiss with the work of a fellow graduate student, Sylvia. Francine was convinced that Sylvia was not actually making the measurements she claimed to be making. They shared the same lab, but Sylvia rarely seemed to be there. Sometimes Francine saw research materials thrown away unopened. The results Sylvia was turning in to their common thesis advisor seemed too clean to be real.

Francine knew that she would soon need to ask her thesis advisor for a letter of recommendation for faculty and postdoc positions. If she raised the issue with her advisor now, she was sure that it would affect the letter of recommendation. Sylvia was a favourite of her advisor, who had often helped Sylvia before when her project ran into problems. Yet Francine also knew that if she waited to raise the issue the question would inevitably arise as to when she first suspected problems. Both Francine and her thesis advisor were using Sylvia’s results in their own research. If Sylvia’s results were inaccurate, they both needed to know as soon as possible.

1.Should Francine first try to talk with Sylvia, with her thesis advisor or with someone else?

2.Does she know enough to be able to raise concerns?

3. Where else can Francine go for information that could help her decide what to do?

Task 6.33. Write an essay of approximately 300 words on the environmental problems in your region, city, town or village.

Task 6.34. Read the texts and discuss them with your fellow students:

Text 1. KILLING FIELDS

Power lines, computers, radar, microwave ovens and electric blankets are sources of non-ionising electromagnetic radiation and threaten the health of the users.

It is a bit more than 100 years since electricity generation started, about 80 years since the beginning of public radio transmissions and 60 years since radar was first used. Since the 1950s we began to surround ourselves with significant amounts of electromagnetic energy.

When radar was first introduced in World War II, it was such an important factor in the Allied victory that few raised questions of its biological safety: safety standards were set high enough to allow the military virtually unrestricted use of microwave and high-frequency radiation. American scientific reports from that time, suggesting that microwave radiation might cause leukaemia, cataracts, brain tumours and heart disease, were ignored.

When maximum exposure levels were set in the 1950s, they were mainly based on how much external power could be dissipated on the surface of the human body without causing a significant rise in body temperature. The validity of these and subsequent safety standards across the electromagnetic spectrum is now being challenged, both within the scientific community and, increasingly, in the courts. This has been brought about by the considerable number of research reports linking low-level alternating electric and magnetic fields with a variety of serious health effects. Particularly worrying are the reports about the effects of 50 Hz and 60 Hz power-line fields, low-frequency pulsed radar systems and high-power ELF (extremely low frequency) communication systems. Here is a selection of some of the report conclusions:

The risk of dying from acute leukaemia is increased by 2.6 if you work in an electrical occupation, especially if you are a telecommunication engineer or radio amateur.

Text 5. AT WAR WITH THE INFO-TERRORISTS

Over the past 30 years, the US has witnessed and contributed greatly to a technology revolution. As a result, the US public (government, business, military) and private (citizens) sectors have become increasingly dependent on the uninterrupted and trusted flow of digital information. Day-to-day operations of banking, energy distribution, air traffic control, emergency medical services, transportation, and many other industries all depend on reliable telecommunications and increasingly complex network of computers, databases, and computer-driven control systems. The Internet has created a global information network that provides opportunities for digital commerce. The connectivity creates a world of commerce without borders. At the same time, this connectivity and dependency make separate sectors vulnerable to information warfare attacks. These attacks, in whatever form, could not only disrupt our daily lives, but also seriously jeopardize our national security. The private sector is being “hit” every day by hackers who spread computer viruses, send abusive messages or even threats to other computer users. People are aware of incidents where computers were used to divert funds by false bank wires, and credit card fraud. These incidents appear to be isolated and the goal limited to theft, that is high-technology bank robbery. However, the number and size of these intrusions may grow to threaten our economic well-being. Besides, hackers and terrorists organizations might use information warfare techniques as part of coordinated attack designed to seriously disrupt infrastructures such as electric power distribution, air-traffic control, or financial sectors, international commerce, and deployed military forces in time of peace or war. Anybody can acquire the hardware and software to attack information-based infrastructures. The methods used could range from such traditional terrorist methods as a vehicle-delivered bomb to electronic attack. The latter methods could rely on paid hackers. The ability to launch an attack is likely to be within the capabilities of a number of terrorist groups, which use the Internet and other modem means for their own communication.

(Adaptedfrom The Guardian)

Text 6. TOXIC SHOCKER

Spitzbergen has a dirty secret. The last stop before the North Pole, and Europe’s most northerly outpost, has become the continent’s long-range cesspool, courtesy of a quirk in the planet’s atmospheric circulation system. Some scientists fear that, eventually, the majority of some of the most lethal man-made chemicals - most of which are now banned in Europe - could end up in places like Spitzbergen, 1,000 kilometres inside the Arctic Circle. Fish in the lakes of Spitzbergen contain six times more mercury than fish in the Scottish highlands - and more than 20 times more than those in Spain. The further north one goes, the more contaminated the fish is.

There is nothing natural about this contamination. The metals come north from the mainland of Europe, and perhaps beyond. And it is not just metals. Poisonous

pesticides and industrial chemicals, many banned in Europe for 20 years or more, are turning up in increasing concentrations in Spitzbergen. Every winter, pollution from European cities and metal smelters forms a smog that spreads north to the Arctic. Some pollutants are deposited on the snow and ice. Each spring, as the ice melts, these poisons flush into the sea, entering the food chain. They are eaten by fish and by birds, seals and polar bears that eat the fish.

There is a global process that is systematically transferring these chemicals from warmer to colder areas. That’s why, for instance, trout in remote lakes in the Yukon contained levels of the pesticide toxaphene that were 10 times higher than Canadian food safety health limits. High levels of DDT, a crop pesticide, dioxins, PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls, man-made chemicals once widely used in the electronics industry) and mercury are also found in the fish. Toxaphene has been banned in Canada for over a decade, but it is widely used in tropical Asia and Latin America. It should be noted that most chemicals evaporate readily - especially in hot climates - and can remain in the air, perhaps for several years, till that air gets cold enough for them to condense out. It is as if the entire planet’s atmosphere is operating a giant distillation experiment, evaporating chemicals from the tropics and transferring them north. The cold air of the Arctic acts as a cleansing system for the rest of the Earth at the cost of chronic pollution in the region once thought to be pristine. Once the poisons reach Arctic waters, they concentrate further as biological processes take over. They reach their highest concentrations in animals at the top of the food chain and humans.

(Adaptedfrom The Guardian)

Text 7. PROFESSIONAL BRIBE-TAKERS?

To take or not to take bribes is not the question. We have all given bribes at least once, like when you need a new passport in an hour, not in a month or 45 days which is a standard procedure. Or you want something else arranged for yourself quickly and effectively. And it is not necessarily an envelope slipped into one’s pocket or passed under the table. It can be arranged as a pay rise, royalty, sponsorship, donation, investment, a book published on a priority basis, or an act of perfectly selfless aid, say, to a court of law, like a shipment of stationery and office equipment. After all, there is a note warning of their shortage attached to every courtroom or office door.

They say the only way to get something done is by buttering palms, that it was always there. And, of course, that is true.

Bribery really is a vital component of the system of interaction and corruption that exists. However, the situation with corruption in general is considerably more complicated because its power to ruin is not bribery in itself but in the professional deformation of civil servants.

Professional deformity manifests itself primarily by negative changes in the individual and professionally required qualities, affecting the public servant’s professional orientation and professional thinking. Professional deformity emerges as the result of repeated negative typical situations over a lengthy period. The most