Document 9LrnvbdebjLKB1BLawLBeZaap

VC EDSAIiL, J.T. - SCIENTIFIC FREEDOM MID (1975) r 1 VC EDSALL, J. T. SCIENTIFIC FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY 0975) ^ O 03 J' 1 16 May 1975, Volume 188, Number ^189 . ^ ft- W- U'hdhu' * l CE1VE D JAN 2 91980 Shlriey D. Conner for fair hearings, due process, and public access to all relevant information. The American Association for the Ad Scientific Freedom and Responsibility vancement of Science (AAAS) is deeply concerned that such issues should be dealt with, and resolved, in a responsible fash ion. It would of course be far beyond the Report of the AAAS Committee on Scientific Freedom capacity of the Association to act as a court of appeal in such disputes, except in and Responsibility. very rare and special cases. However, be cause of its concern with the policy issues involved, the Board of Directors of the John T. Edsall AAAS charged this Committee to con sider the following matters: 1) To study and report on the general conditions required for scientific freedom and responsibility. Problems of scientific freedom and rc- lation growth in our time, largely a con 2) To develop suitable criteria and pro .punsibility are not new, one need only sequence of advances in medical science, cedures for the objective and impartial ...mider, as examples, the passionate con sanitary technology, and transportation, study of these.problems. troversies that were stirred by the work of threatens the ecological balance of the 3) To recommend mechanisms to enable (ijlilco and Darwin. In our time, however, eanh and raises the specter of catastrophic the Association to review specific instances ,..h problems have changed in character, famines. in which scientific freedom is alleged to nil have become far more numerous, These and other problems have led to in have been abridged or otherwise endan ore urgent, and more complex. Science tense and often bitter disputes among gered, or responsible scientific conduct is md its applications have become entwined members of the scientific community, and alleged to have been violated. iih the whole fabric of our lives and between scientists and policy-makers. As The full text of our report in response to Siughts, On the one hand, basic science examples we may recall the controversies this charge is being issued as a special pub hj, enlarged our intellectual horizons-- over the biological hazards of nuclear lication of the AAAS. Here we set forth it need only mention as examples the vis- weapons testing, over the use of defoliants the major features of that report more i> opened up by the formulation of quail- and herbicides in the Vietnam War, over briefly. -.m mechanics and the discovery of the ge- the effects of DDT and other chlorinated tiiv code. Applied science has largely hydrocarbon pesticides, over the antibellis'retd mankind from the terrors of infec- tic missile program, over the supersonic The Scientific Coauusty: :<>us disease; but these terrors have been transport, and over the extent of the haz Its Rights and Responsibilities replaced by new terrors, also the fruits of ards from nuclear power plants. In these vience. These include not only nuclear conflicts the contestants are often unevenly The American scientific community, as capons with their incomparable powers matched, with powerful industrial and gov we define it. includes a wide range of very >f devastation but also such organic ebem- ernmental forces on one side and a small diverse individuals--basic scientists in uni .its as the dioxins, accidentally discovered group of critics on the other. There have versities, research institutes; and govern contaminants of cartain herbicides, been attempts to suppress important scien ment laboratories; engineers; workers in Inch can kill guinea pigs at dosages as tific data that appeared unfavorable to the medicine ind public health; graduate stu as 600 pans per tpllioa (/) and are policies of some powerful organizations. If dents and technicians working on scientific perhaps comparably poisonous for human wise policy decisions are to be made amid problems; and teachers of science in col hongs. The unprecedented rare of popw- such pressures, there is a compelling need leges and secondary schools. The dis cussion that follows applies primarily to Fm article n abbreviated verviou of tbc report ofiko AAAS Committee on Scientific Freedom and Rctpon- scientists involved in basic or applied re \ 'V prepared o* behalf of the Committee by John T. EdealL The member! of the Committee, which waacatabUKUie Alice V. AMat. Director Emcntue of Ibc Natiowal Sureev ofStandard! and Home Secretary of search, but in large measure it is relevant N imml Academy of Scicncua. Chairman Johu T. EditR. Profaraor of Biodinaiolry Ementea. Harvard Uai- to the whole scientific community. Wilier i Hickd. former Governor of Aladu md former U3. Secretary of tho fatwtor. John H. Kaowtaa, lent of the Rockefeller Foundation; Earl Werrm. former ChiefJoatka of the U-S. Soprano Court (who died The Committee concluded, early in its Ml It74h and Dorothy Zhtbcrj. Loctaror la Sodofofy, Harvard Ueivertity. Mary Catherine BMoam. Ana- deliberations, that issues of scientific free rfri.fo.wria the Departmml of Sorioleay md Aothiopofoay. Northaaeum Uetvervty, wrrad 00 the Cook " turnPearly 1971 dom end responsibility ate basically in trprinu of tbit article cm bo obtained lion Dr. Bdnl at tha Biolopkal Laboratortaa. Harvard Uoivernty, separable. Scientific freedom, like aca ` .-`v.apc. MiardiiatttBIR 'V Inn report of ihn Committaa. ScUmtjke Fnaadaaa md RMaudWill, cm ho obtained from tha AnocnUm demic freedom (2), is an acquired right, ,| ""1 ofJ2.9S for mnmban and tM9 for uoumemberr. Check! Would bu ruada payahfo to the Amortem Auw '' " for the AdvaiiLunm of Sdtmu nod ardwe nut to the A madidon at ISIS MaaaacbaaMa Anaan, NW, generally accepted by society as necessary '^'"poa, DC. MODS. for the advancement of knowledge from Vty ms M7 ucc 024978 y ji in m which society may benefit. Scientist* pos of human physiology and behavior that we see no justification as yet for attempts rescarc sess no rights beyond those of other citi may involve risk to the experimental sub to impose restrictions on the freedom of stated zens except those necessary to fulfill the re ject. With young children, informed con genetic research. We hold that the dangers inittcc sponsibilities arising from their special sent is impossible m obtain; parents or today are remote, and that they are dcci. man W knowledge, and from the insight arising from that knowledge. I atcr we shall have much to say of the activities often referred to as "whistle guardians must take the heavy responsi bility of giving consent for the child. Some experiments may endanger the health, or even the lives, of the participants; some sively outweighed by the great benefits that such research can bring. Free discussi process approxi blowing" in which issues of freedom and responsibility arc inextricably inter mingled. Whistle blowing involves situ ations in which a scientist, engineer, physi cian. or other expert becomes aware of hazards arising from some process, mate psychological experiments could he re garded as morally degrading or psycholog ically damaging. In such cases, review of the proposed experiments by a qualified panel of experts may provide more effec tive protection to the subjects than the at Restrictions on Needed Research: Feral Research as an Example As we have said above, the advancement of knowledge by research must often be balanced against risks to experimental errors ; hy a t which r This pr general prctatu; fication rial, or product, or becomes aware of pos sible improvements in technology or pro cedure that deserve to be adopted but are being neglected. Issues of public safety are frequently involved, and often the whistle blower works for the marketer of the pro cess or product. Some may argue that per sons with expert knowledge have a "right" to release information in their possession, if such release is in the public interest. Oth ers would say that it is the responsibility of such experts to release the information, even though they might prefer to remain silent. Both rights and responsibilities are clearly involved here, but it seems clear to us that the responsibilities are primary. Presumably the potential whistle blower will begin by reporting his concern to his employer and urging that corrective mea sures be taken: if the matter can be settled without appeal to outside authority, so much the better. IT this step fails, however, and the concerned employee decides that he has the responsibility to make the mat tempt to obtain their informed consent, al though we would insist on the importance of the latter. Some experiments are justified, even if they involve great risks. The experiments that conclusively demonstrated the trans mission of yellow fever by mosquitoes in volved the death of one subject. Dr. Jesse Lazear. Those who took part knew they were risking their lives. Such heroic experi ments are fortunately seldom called for, but they may well be needed from time to time in the future. Recently, in a statement probably un precedented in the history of science, a group of eminent molecular biologists, headed by Paul Berg of Stanford Univer sity, have deliberately renounced, for the time being, certain experiments on the transplantation of foreign genes into bac teria because of potential though as yet un proven hazards to human health (J). This group has spoken with authority as the Committee on Recombinant DNA Mole subjects that may be involved in gaining that knowledge. The complexity of the is sues involved emerges from the diverse points of view that have been collected and set forth in much recent discussion, nota bly in a comprehensive book (4) and in a symposium (J). In some important instances we believe that current restrictions on research have gone too far. Thus the National Research Act of 1974 has, at least temporarily, banned research on any "living" humaa fetus, either before or alter induced abor tion, except in the very unlikely event that the experiment is intended to save the life of that particular fetus (6). We strongly oppose such restrictions Research on the human fetus, over the past two decades, has yielded major benefits for human health. Behrman (7) has pointed out how many diseases that we' can now diagnose or treat, or both, would have been unmanageable if a ban on feta) research had been in effect. Especially notable is Rk That tO illU* showet pedes : and te> ards tc inform believe provid1 tal scit cept in atomic such ct sided c it shot unless for wit matior should rity" as we cent e govern ter public, he faces obvious risks that may cules of the Assembly of Life Sciences of disease, which is now totally preventable, include the loss of his job. If whistle blow ers are to be encouraged to take such risks--and we believe that they should be the National Academy of Sciences. Their views have received wide public attention; of course, this committee has no police thanks in considerable part to fetal re search. The human fetus is extremely sus ceptible to many drugs, as the thalidomide Techwe Their f encouraged, when serious issues are in powers to enforce its recommendations, disaster dramatically demonstrated. Like volved--they muu be assured of some but its influence is great and as yet appears wise. the fetus is far more susceptible to ra Whc form of due process in passing judgment not to have been seriously challenged. The diation damage than the adult Research sic scit on the issues that they raise. This would members of the committee are well aware on fetuses that do not survive abortions techno call for the presence of outside independent of the dilemma; the experiments that are, can help us to discover how to give protec respon members on any board that passes judg for the present, being renounced ate not tion from such harmful agents to thou dabic. ment on the issues, and should also include only of great scientific interest but also sands of other fetuses that are destined to nologh some right of appeal. We return to these might make positive contributions to hu reach full term and to grow into healthy novatir matters later. I '! * man health and well-being. The decision adults. We would urge that fetal research involves an expert btlanced judgment of not only be permitted but intensified, sub the inr comph I Should There Be ForMha Areas probabilities and risks (ink ject to careful peer review of the research The grounds cited for refraining from projects involved. These compc in Basie Research? these experiments--to protect human beings from possible new and dangerous jor tec critica Those Tor whom the advancement of infections--are quite different from the The Conflict betwien Science and Secrecy knowledge is a supreme value might be ethical problems of present or future "ge called ten del lieve that, in basic research as distinct from netic engineering," as with the possible Many scientists, especially those em pronot applied science and technology, no subject production of multiple copies of people ployed in industrial firms and in some gov mary should be declared ofT limits. Yet there are with identical genotypes by cloning. The ernment laboratories, spend much or most The dear inhibitions on some kinds of research suggested threats here are not so much to of their time in work classified as secret. an exa involving human beings, and indeed ani health as to humaa integrity, dignity, and Often the grounds for secrecy appear com brougi mals. Today we are increasingly consdoun individuality. It seems to us proper to bn pelling, Nevertheless, science inevitably dcmic of the need for informed consent in studies on the alert for such possible threats, but stiffen from the imposition of secrecy on tial su MS SCIENCE, VOL. lit it MA UCC 024979 ;M\irch proicct. The reasons were well , itt^l in the report of the AAAS Com plice on Science in the Promotion of Hu- m Welfare (.V. p. 177); tree di"cmin.iiti'n of information and open >,usMiin i' an usscmial part of the scientific -roit" faeh scpar.ne study of nature sields an sprosintaic revnll and inevitably contains some ,rrors and omissions Science gels at the truth -i a continuous process of sclf-csamtnalion .sLh remedies umissions and corrects errors. This process requires free disclosure of results. ..acral dissemination of findings, imer-reiaiions, conclusions, and widespread veri..Hum and criticism ol results and conclusions. That report provided specific examples to illustrate these general conclusions and .howed that secrecy almost always im pedes scientific progress: in applied science and technology it frequently permits haz ards to develop that could be eliminated if information were publicly available. We believe that, with rare exceptions, data that ' provide a significant advance in fundamen tal science should not be kept secret, ex cept in a major war situation, as with the atomic bomb in World War II. Even in inch cases information should remain clas hed only for a limited and specified time; it should then be released automatically, unless a strong specific case can be made for withholding a particular piece of infor mation for a further limited time. We .hould look at claims of "national seenmy" with a very critical eye. such claims, us we have good reason to know from re cent experience, often serve to cover up governmental ineptitude or corruption. was spectacular. Only a few biological ex perts warned of trouble at that time. Grad ually problems appeared, as insect pests developed resistance to DDT; as, in many cases, the pesticide destroyed the natural enemies of the pests; as the long per sistence of DDT in soil was discovered, and its progressive concentration in food chains led to the killing of great numbers of certain birds and fishes. All this has led. in the United States, to the banning of DDT for nearly all uses. Yet in countries where malaria is widespread, the spraying of house interiors with DDT has proved the most effective antimalarial technique available. In Sri Lanka (Ceylon) malaria had almost disappeared by 1963, when the DDT program was stopped. Then, in 1968 and 1969, there was an explosive increase in the number of infections. In 1967 only 3,465 cases had been reported; in 1968 the number rose to 425,937, and in early 1969 the rate of infection was even higher (10). Other factors were at work, of course; the World Health Organization attributed the rise in the incidence of malaria in large part to conditions that were unusually fa vorable to the breeding of the Anophelts mosquito and to unusual human popu lation movements that helped to spread the infection (II). Nevertheless, until we have something better, DDT appears to be an essential component of any major program of maluriaconlrol. Other complexities have arisen in con nection with programs for international development. Dams and irrigation schemes have vastly increased the in cidence of bilharziasis (schistosomiasis), a there is something inherently evil about technology. Technology has heen indis pensable for the rise of all civilizations, and new technology is essential for the survival of our own civilization. As an example we need only mention the need for the devel opment of new energy sources--solar and geothermal energy and nuclear fusion, for instance -that may be less polluting than fossil fuels and less hazardous than nuclear fission. Likewise we reject the notion of the socalled "technological imperative" the idea that we must pursue new tech nological possibilities, wherever they may lead. Thousands of projects may be techni cally feasible, including the destruction of all human life on Earth. Even among those projects that appear attractive at first sight, careful appraisal may lead to the conclusion that they will do more harm than good. The U.S. Congress drew such a conclusion in 1971, when it voted to cut off funds for the supersonic transport pro gram, which it had been generously fund ing a few years earlier. In summary, the development of new technologies is indispensable; the training and encouragement of gifted and imagina tive technologists deserves a high priority among our national needs, hut the multiple repercussions of new technology need to be critically evaluated before they are in troduced and constantly monitored after their first introduction. Many schemes that are technically brilliant must be rejected because their wider impact would, on the whole, be more damaging than bene ficial. In some cases it would be prefer Technology and Innovation; Their Multiple and Complex Effects debilitating disense for which there is as yet no effective cure (12). The disastrous effects of the recent catastrophic droughts in the Sahel region, south of the Sahara, able, in the eyes of some thoughtful sci entific policy advisers, not to carry a project from the stage of research even into preliminary development, lest pres When wc turn from the problems of bo ne science to those of applied science and technology, the problems of freedom and responsibility become even more formi have been accentuated by some tech nological innovations, notably, for ex ample. by the drilling of thousands of deep boreholes which have tapped the abundant sures would then arise that would lead to its full development. dable. Whatever the intentions of tech nological innovators, the results of in novation are always more complex than the innovators intended, and usually more water far below the surface: The resultant walls encouraged a great increase in the size of the cattle herds; pasture instead of water became the limiting factor in num ConMcts InvoMeg Scientific Freedom We turn now to the second item in the , complex than they could even imagine. These facts, in our time, have created a compelling need for the assessment of mojor technological innovations, and for their critical evaluation and control. The socolled "side effects" of innovation are of ten deleterious and not infrequently are so bers of cattle. As pasture dried up in the drought, countless thousands of dead and dying cattle were clustered around the boreholes; while the surrounding land, for miles around, was ravaged by trampling and overgrazing. These wells, drilled by men of good will and technical skill in or charge to this Committee, which calls for us "to develop suitable criteria and proce dures for the objective and impartial study of these problems." The conflicts that call for such study generally lie in the realm of applied science and technology, including medicine and public health. In most in pronounced that they dominate the pri mary elTect that was intended. The history of the use of DDT provides m example of such complexity (9). Its use brought a dramatic halt to a cholera epi demic in Naples in World War II; its iniml success in destroying agricultural pests der to bring more water to the people and cattle of the SahcL became a major factor in intensifying a great human and natural disaster (/J). These illustrations could be multiplied n hundredfold. Let us add at onca that we are not among those who consider that stances they involve the right, and the re sponsibility, of an employee to warn con cerning the dangers inherent in some prod uct or process with which he has become familiar in the course of his work; that is, the "whistle blowing" activity of which we have spoken earlier. The employer mey M It MAY 1*75 (M ucc 024980 pul intense pressure on the employee to and against the engineers. The managers sponded by recommending a precau Criteria ami keep quiet; the employee may he freed, or then told the three engineers that they life may he made so uncomfortable that he- could choose between resigning and being decides to resign. Interested parties may fired: they refused lo resign and were sum tionary label that made no mention of toxic effects on animals or people; in other words, it appears to have deliberately the Rexoluti Having n seek to suppress scientific data that arc vi tal for the proper resolution of a con troversy. On the other hand, the employee marily dismissed. Subsequent events vindi cated their concern. The ATC system failed on several occasions; the failures deceived NIOSH regarding the true facts. Apparently MCA has claimed that the withholding of data was due to their agree ihe problem procedures We approai may he acting not in the public interest but were so dangerous that the system could ment with the European manufacturers to criteria by ; out of prejudice or spile against the em not be used, and it became necessary to keep the data confidential until an agree ployer. To be an "objective and impartial" control the trains in the traditional man ment for their release could be worked out. offering an; decision or judge in such circumstances is not easy; one person's "objectivity" looks like bias to another. In all these cases scientific evi ner. The California Society of Professional Engineers (CSPE) initiated an inquiry. The fact remains that, because of the sup. pression of these data, lens of thousands of workers were exposed without warning, for and safety, amenities o cerned? Wil dence is ait essential part of the whole situ However, BART's lop management perhaps some 2 years, to toxic concentra cleanup of ation, hut wise decisions involve complex refused to meet with them, or to oiler ex tions of vinyl chloride. On 22 January tain industr human factors, ethical judgments, and planations to anyone. Then CSPE under 1974, B. F. Goodrich announced that three close down, standards of value that go far beyond took a full investigation of the firings, polyvinyl chloride workers, in just one of non? How purely scientific argument. We consider briefly a few specific eases, before dis cussing criteria and procedures, which brought out much disturbing infor mation, and the California State Legisla ture set in motion a study, resulting in a re their plants, had died of angiosarcoma of the liver since 1971. On the same day MCA revealed the Maltoni data to against co health? Wh environ men j The problem of standards for exposure port (the "Post Report") which essentially NIOSH. The Occupational Safety and lions and o i to radiation. A few years ago, Drs. J. W. confirmed the warnings of the three engi Health Administration, on 5 April, in as possible ful I (iofntan and A. K. Tamplin, who worked neers. Although CSPE took tentative steps emergency action lowered the permissible sidered, as. at the laboratories of the Atomic Energy toward a court action on behalf of the engi exposure level from 500 to 50 ppm; drastic used acroso Commission (AliC) in l.ivcrmorc,Califor neers, the society did not follow through on further lowering, to I ppm or less, is ia in a decade nia, claimed that existing standards for ex- this. The engineers themselves launched a prospect (16). haps might j posure to ionizing radiation were far too suit against BART for S885.000, the out The evidence here seems clear a consid in the strati tolerant, and would permit a large increase come of which we have not yet learned erable number of scientists were aware of problems if '> in the number of deaths from cancer if ex- (IS). the hazards of vinyl chloride long before formulation I posurcs rose to the allowed levels. They. The ease ofdata suppression concerning the facts were made available to NIOSH easier to in' I publicized their views widely. The chief au- the carcinogenicity of vinyl chloride. In or to the public; yet they kept quiet aa| new enterpr i thurifies in the A EC sharply opposed these May 1970 an Italian investigator. Dr. P. L. gave no warning. As the Federation of that is alrc t views and held them to he invalid. Gofman Viola, reported at a cancer congress that American Scientists states, .. industrial capital inve i and Tamplin eventually left the ABC, after high concentrations of vinyl chloride scientists who fail to challenge conspiracies ation and | what they believed lo he considerable ha* caused cancer in rats. Up to that time there of silence within their firms are not re deeply entit | rassniem, and eventually the ABC did im- had apparently been no research in the buked; rather, they are often quietly re sight in lei | pose considerably stricter radiation slan- plastics industry concerning the possible warded for their loyalty." whelming; y { dards for the protection of workers within hazards of vinyl chloride, although tens of In industrial medicine and public health and needs - ' its jurisdiction. A committee appointed by thousands of workers were exposed to it. similar situations often arise. In recent further expc the National Academy of Sciences, after More than a year later, the Manufacturing books Paul Brodcur (17) and Rachel Scott We tum intensive study, produced a report, com Chemists Association (MCA) in the (IS) have described the medical problems whistle bio* monly known as the BEIR (Biological Ef United States initiated its own research of workers exposed to asbestos particles, ing. withou fects of Ionizing Radiation) Report (Id). and in October 1972 entered into an agree beryllium dust, and other hazards. Many good prospi which stands at present as the most author- ment with the plastics manufacturers, who of these workers develop cancer, or fatal if they are f j itativc statement on the hazards ofionizing sponsored the European research, to share respiratory or other diseases; over the be put into radiation. In our full report we consider information but not to reveal it without the course of 10 or 20 years; the risk is high. engineering this controversy at somewhat greater consent of the European manufacturers. In Yet the Company physicians who look af of ethics re | length. August 1972 Dr. Cesare Maltoni of Bo ter the workers sometimes join their em employers a | The case of the BART engineers. A ma> logna found angiosarcomas and various ployers in minimizing the need for more sonal condt i jor feature of the Bay Area Rapid Transit tumors in experimental animals exposed to rigorous standards of health protection. employees, j (BART) system in the San Francisco Bty vinyl chloride concentrations as low as 250 This appears to be a dear abdication of the of such con* : area was to be the Automated Train Com* parts per million (ppm). At that time the prime responsibility of physicians or public mem on "E I trol (ATC) system, for whidr a contract allowed exposure limit for workers in the health workers to place the health of the has now bet was awarded to the Wcslinghowa Electric United States was 500 ppm. In January people for whom they are responsible be ncering ant 1 Corporation in 1967. Beginning ja April 1973 U.S. scientists visited Dr. Maltoni fore all other considerations. Obviously most part i | 1969, three of the engineers on the project and learned of his findings. However, they doctor who is paid by a commercial enter principles tt j became increasingly concerned about what did not notify the National Institute ofOc prise will find it very difficult to act con tween empk they saw as serious defects in the system. cupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) trary to the policy of the company. The contains th- They expressed their concerns to the man concerning these extremely ominoua find doctor who works for an independent in professional agement but drew no significant response ings, nor did they make any attempt to specting agency will be in a much stronger gard for the except vague warnings not to be "trouble warn the public or the workers exposed to position. Even so, we know from experi public and f makers." Late ia 1971 the three engineers vinyl chloride. In late January 1973 ence that regulatory agencies often become which he/sl decided to take their case to the Board of NIOSH requested information on possible the subservient allies of the organization technical ad Directors; this led to a public hearing in hazards associated with occupational ex that they are supposed to regulate and may is involved, February 1972, after which the Board posure to 23 chemical substances, includ collaborate with the commercial organim- lie and his/t voted 10 to 2 in favor of the management ing vinyl chloride; On 7 March, MCA re tion in concealing the hazards. plans that * MO science, vol in i* may i7s mm ucc 024981 CCil l>'_ ntion le: m atcly facts, t the igrceers to igrcc<1 out. : suptds of 'g. for jntranuarv three me of tna of ; dav ta to i and in an issible Irastic is in onsidarc of ncforc lOSH :t and on of jstrial racies ot re ly re health recent Scott blems tides. Many fatal r the high. >k afr cmmore ction. of the public of the le heusly a enter* t con. The nt inonger xperitcome ations i may aniza- IL IS* j ( nttria and Procedures Tor ,(it Resolution of Conflicts | H.oing now indicated the character of t ;hc problems, we now tun) to criteria and procedures that may aid in resolving them. \\>i approach the problem of establishing .nlena by asking questions rather than by :!cnng answers. How will the proposed jaMon or procedure alfect human health jnd safety, and the general quality and amenities of life, for ail the people con.rrntd.' Will a decision to require a drastic .leanup of operating conditions in a ccr.nn industry cause much of the industry to I Jusc down, with loss of jobs and produc in' How should such risks be balanced iL'ainst considerations of safety and `lealih' What are the possible large-scale .nnronmental effects of the present operanuns and of the proposed changes? Have possible future effects been carefully connifcred, as. for instance, with the widely used aerosols, which liberate Freons that, - ,n a decade or two, might (but again per haps might not) destroy much of the ozone in the stratosphere? These are some of the problems that will have to be faced in the formulation of criteria. Obviously it is far cower to impose suitable regulations on a ic* enterprise than on a powerful industry ;.hj| is already established, with a huge upitul investment and with faults of oper.non and production that arc already deeply entrenched. Thus the need for fore* wghi in technology assessment is overhelming; yet foresight is always imperfect ind needs constantly to be corrected by further experience. We turn now to procedures; how is the whistle blower to be assured of a fair hear ing without fear of reprisals, and with a food prospect that his recommendations, if they are found to be sound, will actually he put into practice? Many scientific and engineering societies have developed codes of ethics relating to the responsibility of employers and to the professional and per ianal conduct of scientific and technical employees. A highly articulate expression of such concerns is to be found in a statnment on "Employment Guidelines," which has now been adopted by atJcasl 20 engi neering and scientific societies. For the most part, it is concerned with the general principles that should govern relations beiwecn employers and employees, but it also contains the significant statement* "The professional employee should have due re tard for the safety, life and health of the public and fellow employees in all work for hich he/she is responsible. Where the technical adequacy of a process or product is involved, he/she should protect the pub lic and his/her employer by withholding of plans that do not meet accepted profes- sional standards and by presenting clearly the consequences to be expected if his/her professional judgment is not followed" (19, p. 59). The formulation of such a declaration is a significant event. How much it means de pends, of course, on the effectiveness with which it is applied. Moreover, these guide lines. like most such codes of ethics that we have seen, lack a very important in gredient. namely, a provision for the arbi tration of disputes. The protection of indi viduals from arbitrary action by authority is deeply ingrained in English common law, and the U.S. Constitution provides that "no person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due pro cess of law." We believe that some form of due process should be an essential part of any employer-employee agreement or con tract. to protect the employee from arbi trary .action by the employer, allegedly based on professional or personal miscon duct. A minimum requirement for such due process would involve a hearing by a board, including independent members, with the right of appeal to some reasonably neutral but professionally qualified higher authority. Codes of professional ethics are likely to be ineffective unless some type of due process is provided for the resolution of disputes. Without this, scientific free dom is likely to be abridged. We therefore strongly recommend that all employment contracts involving scientific or profes sional employees include such provisions for the review of disputes through hearing and appeal processes. Provision for neutral or third-party participation is important, particularly when issues of public interest are involved. Profcarieual Societies as Protectees of tha Public Interest How active can, and should, profes sional societies be in actively lighting on behalf of their members who are attempt ing to defend the public interest? Most such societies have in the past remained aloof from conflicts of this sort and have often taken the attitude that the purity of their devotion to the advancement of their respective sciences, would somehow be con taminated if they entered the public arena to contest such issues. We believe that such attitudes are no longer appropriate. The scientific community can no longer remain apart from the conflicts of our time, where so many technological decisions are being made that vitally alfect the well-being of society. We are not proposing that profes sional societies should take public stands on large general political issues, such as the legitimacy of the Vietnam Wan individual members of the societies, when their con cern is aroused, should deal with these matters hy other mechanisms. However, in matters directly related to the professional competence of members of the society, where the public interest is clearly in volved, wc believe that the societies can and should play a much more active role than they have in the past. They can deal with such issues by setting up committees of inquiry in cases where a serious viola tion of scientific freedom or responsibility is suspected; by publicizing the results of the inquiry in professional journals, and. if necessary, in the more popular journals and in the news media; and by calling the matter to the attention of governmental bodies, as with the California Legislature in the BART case. They can on occasion launch lawsuits on behalf of their members who have apparently sufTered injustice when acting on behalf of the public inter est. In stating this, our major new proposal for dealing with "the objective and impar tial study of these problems," we are aware of the difficulties that the proposal will face. The most serious problems are those of time and money. Most professional so cieties have limited funds: many operate more or less on a shoestring. They keep members' dues fairly small; otherwise members drop out, particularly in times of economic hardship. The fighting of diffi cult cases, on behalf of members involved in controversies, can be a very expensive business, especially if the case goes into the courts. In any event, responsible scientists would be required to spend substantial amounts of precious time serving on hear ing panels, studying large bodies of evi dence, and preparing reports. When a professional society does fight for the rights of its members, it is more likely to be concerned with defending their status and pay than to be acting primarily on behalf of the public interest as its pri mary motive. The impetus to take actions of the latter sort is likely to be much less strong than the desire to provide direct help to members of one's own professional group. These are powerful obstacles to our pro posals, but they are not insuperable. So cieties that share common interests, but which may be individually too weak finan cially to support such activities, may band together in groups to finance the necessary operations. There are increasing pressures upon scientists, engineers, and other mem bers of the scientific community to face these public issues and deal with them ef fectively. These pressures come both from the public and from within the ranks of the scientists themselves. We are well aware of the mistrust and hostility toward science I* MAY 1075 Mi UCC nr 024982 that is manifest in many quarters; one retlccimn of this attitude is the decline in government support of scientific research hi recent years. Such hostility will almost certainly prow unless scientists exhibit greater concern for preventing the misuse of science and technology. As these con cerns become more intense, it should be come easier for the professional societies to obtain additional funds to finance the expenses of lawsuits, hearing panels, and other activities undertaken in the defense of the public-interest. Whether government funds could or should be available for such purposes is open to question; but it is likely that some of the major private founda tions. either those now in existence or those yet to be created, will see the urgency of supporting such public service activities. The need Tor these activities may also lead to the creation of other social mechanisms for dealing with .these problems, of a sort that we cannot now foresee. We look tOiincreascd activity of the professional so cieties as the most hopeful approach to the problem in the immediate future. The Role of the AAAS in the Defense of Scientific Freedom and Responsibility We now consider the third charge from the AAAS to this Committee: "To recom mend mechanisms to enable the Associa tion to review specific instances in which scientific freedom is alleged to have been abridged or otherwise endangered, or re sponsible scientific conduct is alleged to have been violated." The domain of the AAAS is very broad, including all of the sciences and a large number of profes sional societies which belong to it as affili ates. Hence, by its nature the AAAS can not undertake the rote that we have envisaged for the professional societies in the preceding section. The number of pos sible appeals to the AAAS, if it were to un dertake the responsibility of reviewing par ticular instances of alleged threats to scientific freedom and responsibility, would be immense. If it were to agree to handle some such cases, it would have to be rigorously selective end deal only with those that were at once so important end so broad in scope that they would fall out side the domain of any individual society. Because of its multiple affiliations with the professional societies, the AAAS can play an important part in coordinating many of the activities of the societies. A number of the societies, for example, are now formulating, or revising, codes of eth ics for their members, which will involve policies for dealing with issues such as ws have been discussing here. The AAAS can help to provide an exchange of information on these matters among the different so cieties and thereby promote n more unified approach to these complex issues. The AAAS is already playing a signifi cant role in dealing with alleged abridg ments of scientific freedom, and alleged vi olations of responsible scientific conduct, through active discussion of such matters in Science, chiefly in the News and Com ment section, but also in some of the lead articles and in the Letters section.^ Since Science is so widely read, both inside and outside the scientific community, this is one of the most important channels'now available for bringing such problems to the attention of the public. To focus public at tention on such problems, of course, is not to resolve them, but it is an essential step toward such resolution. We recommend 'that Science, without any drastic change of its present editorial policies, enhance its coverage of such matters, particularly by inviting distinguished academic, industrial, and government scientists who are well in formed on some of these controversial is sues to set them forth in its pages. In some cases, it will be desirable to present two or more articles by different authors, ex pressing more or less contradictory points of view. In scientific controversies, it should not be necessary for the champions of different views to operate like adver saries in s court of law; the opposing sides presumably should be able to find a large area of agreement about scientific facts that are not in dispute. The real dis agreements in such cases usually turn not on the scientific facts but on the relative weight to be given to different kinds of sci entific facts, and on extrascientific issues involving political judgment and broad general perspectives on human nature and human motives. These factors always enter into the practical decisions that must be made in applications of science and tech nology. When a scientist or technologist states a case for action of a certain sort on such an issue, it is important that he make clear the general presuppositions from which he starts. He may. of course, be un conscious of these presuppositions; if so. Science should as a matter of editorial pol icy bring them to the surface. This is im portant. both for the rational discussion of the issues involved and for the main tenance of public confidence in the honesty and objectivity of scientists. On rare occasions the AAAS may and should become actively involved in broad issues that are important and con troversial, as it did when it decided to con duct an investigation of the effects of defoliants and herbkidea in Vietnam. This was an important attempt to obtain scica- tific evidence on an issue that had aroused passionate controversy (20), The National Academy of Sciences, at the request of Congress, later undertook a more exten sive study of the same problems, with in. creased financial support provided by the Department of Defense. The resulting re. port of the National Academy committee (21) greatly extended and amplified the AAAS report; the findings of both are for the most part reasonably concordant, but some discrepancies have given rise to con troversy (22). These disagreements can be resolved later, when it is possible to con duct studies of the Vietnamese forests on the ground in a peaceful setting; as long war continues, only aerial observations are possible. In any case the AAAS study per formed a valuable service and was in no way rendered superfluous by the later study of the National Academy of Sci ences. This raises the more general question: What should be the relation between the AAAS and the National Academy in mat ters such at we have considered in this re port? The National Academy has special prestige and a unique relation to the (J.S. government. It, and its committees, cas speak on many issues with far more au thority than the AAAS, and it can gener ally command much more financial sup port for its investigations. However, the AAAS, with its much broader member ship, is more widely representative of American science in general, and its greater independence from governmental ties gives it a greater freedom of action. Both organizations clearly have very im portant and somewhat different roles to play in the maintenance of scientific free dom and responsibility. The problems we have been considering here wifi certainly continue and will prob ably become more numerous and mote acute in the yean to come. We hope that the concern of the AAAS will continue We suggest that, not more than S years hence, the AAAS should reexamine the whole problem, perhaps by setting up i committee similar to this one, to see when we stand at that time. Alternatively or in addition, it might set up a committee to re ceive complaints concerning violations of scientific freedom and responsibility and refer them, when possible and desirable, to appropriate bodies for further study and possible action. Such a committee should not itself serve as a judicial body; its func tions should be to refer complaints for pos sible action elsewhere and to analyze the information received, with an eye to pos sible recommendations concerning future policy initiatives by the AAAS in the light of this information. The terms of reference 692 SCIENCE, VOL. IK of '0 caref from man; i r< n r . ol N m ai cl t* ai ir 2. V E je it 2a. Ir fr ti d tl si li ir n A diet the get and sele cial safe hou latibe i lica intc 1 cial lish the D *r ioo for its: wo i6 r ucc 024983 ?j i >uch ,i iommnkv would need to he very m ifc!ull> drawn. u prevent the committee conditions cannot be met without the development of new organisms anil new techniques, so that the moratorium is in effect being continued for such Rmtiouon (Division of Mciiuul Sciences, National Academy of Sciences National Research Council, Washington, DC., 1972) 4i I miii hc'tnj* twerwhclmed by a maw of unj njnageahle complaints. experiments. See N, Wade. Science 1117. 931 (1975). 4. J. Kal/. td., Experimentation with Hyman Brings 15. Our description is taken from a more detailed re port hy S, H. Unger ("The BART Case Hhics and the Employed Engineer." Inst kteeir hitr- (Russell Sage foundation. New yprk. 1972). tmn Eng Cumm. Stic Imphcaiinns Terhnot. i* ' References mi Nmm 5. "Clinical Studies in the Human: The Ethical and Neusl. No 4 (Sept, 1973), p. 6 (V. Klig, bd, i* I P^pCtiiu on l hl,>nnatcd Pihenstnhtnins uni Scientific Problems." symposium by A. C. Bantcu -- d97 Park Avenue, l.eonia, N.J, 07W)4)|. R, Q. Marston. B. Barber, and J. Kat/ [Ftrtd. 16. Our discussion is based on Fed. Am. Sci. Prof, ie || miroftnivnul Health Per- Stent. 13.593 (I972)|, ,pct.ii'cv I \pcntucni.il Issue No 5, Department 6. B. J. CullHon. Science III5,426 (1974). --ffull. 2 (No. H). I (1974). 17. P, Rrodcur, Expendable Americans (Viking Press. of Hc.ilit). Nmation, and Welfare PuMtealtoA- 7. t. K Bchrman. Hew York Timer (9 June 1974), New York. 1974). Concerning the hazards of as* :e So Sill National Institute of Environ* menial Health Sucnccy Box 122,'.'. Research Trl* opposite editorial page. 8. AAAS Committee on Science in the Promotion of bextos. and steps taken to control them, see also; A K Ahmed, D. R. MacLeod, J Carmody (*W* ic jnelc Park. NC . September 1973). Several aril- Human Welfare, "The integrity of science,'4 Am. moment iSt. Louis) \i (No, 10). |6(I9?2)|. ir j lIcs deal with the toxntiy of the dioxins. Sea particularly table 4 in the article by R. Baughman Sci. 53,174(1965). 18. R. Scott. Muscle and Blood (Dutton, New York, 9. For a useful short history of the use of DDT, see G. 1974). Jt anti M S MeselM>n. pp 2? 35, which summarizes Mclnlirc, Environment (St. Louis) 14 (No. 6), 14 19. Statement on "Employment Guidelines,'4 Inst. i- the results o( earlier worlterv * \ l-jrlc. td, On I endemic Freedom (American 10. Vhesc figures are from Wortd Health Organization Elect. Electron. Eng Spectrum 1973, 57 (April 1973). The statement has been adopted by al least >c t-nicrpnse Institute. Washington, DC., 1971). Reievt Epidemioioftque Hebdomadatre (8 August 20 ensineehng and scientific societies. i* t P Berg ft al. Srimer I85. 303 (1974* N. Wade, 1969). 20. M. S. Mexelson, A. H Westing, J. D. Constable thid.p u; 11. R. Garcia. Environment fSt. Louis) 14 (No. 5). 2 Herbicide Assessment Commission of the Amen* n tj In l-chruar> 1*475. an international conference of (1972). can Association for the Advancement of Science, experts at the \\ilom.tr Conference Center m Cali* 12. For numerous examples of this and many other Background Matenal Relevant to Presentations at forma tletotetl several days of intensive discussions problems m international development schemes, the 1970 Annual Meeting of the AAAS (reprinted `C to this problem and eoneludcd with a recommen dation to lilt the voluntary moratorium on most of see The Carriesr Technology Ecology and Inter* national Development, M, T. Farvar and J. P. Mil- in the Congreutonal Record 118 (No. 32). S3226 S3233 (3 March 1972)|. r* these proposed genetic experiments. However, ton, Eds. (Natural History Press, Garden City. 21. Committee on the Effects of Herbicides in Viet o such experiments were to he done only subject N.Y., 1972). to rigorous precautions for containment of the 13. C. Sterling. Atlantic Monthly (May 1974). p. 98; nam, The Effects of Herbicides in South Vietnam (National Academy of Sciences, Washington, :r possibly hazardous organisms, the stringency of N. Wade. Science 189,234(1974). D.C., 1974). i* the precautions increasing with the estimated mb 14. Report of the Advisory Committee on the Biologi 22. Concerning this controversy, see, for instance, D. m different categories of experiments. Indeed, for cal Effects of Ionizing Radiations, The Effects on Shaptey (.{rfenre 183, 1177 (1974)) and C. Nor many of the possible experiments, the required Populations ofExposure to Low Leeds ofIonizing man [Nature (Load. MB* 186(1974)). i: ic t- It 5. with origins deep in the social structure, n and from the ambience of the early John j* son Administration which encompassed a Social Indicatorsr- commitment to the idea that the benefits v and costs of domestic social programs are tC r- >f Social science researchers are developing concepts subject to measurement and to the belief that each newly perceived, albeit ancient, inadequacy in the society should, and is it and measures of changes in society. would, call forth a corrective response from a federal government whose efficacy 1, would be assisted by social measurement, 1o Eleanor Beraert Sheldon and Robert Parke planning, and new management analytical techniques. Impetus was provided by a handful of social scientists and public ad ministrators. The enthusiasm elicited re g sponses from economists who saw a role A statistical report entitled Social In* ography were issued in 1970, 1971, and for their skills as theorists and measurers e dicaior*, IQ7J was published last year by 1972. Government agencies both in the of welfare, sociologists who saw the rele it the U.S. Office of Management and Bud* United States and abroad (i), as well as vance of their own research tradition in the gel (/). StH itil Indicator* contains charts private scholars and research institutes, are measurement of social trends, political sci s and tables presenting statistical lime scries concerning themselves with social in entists who sought ways to rationalize gov e selected and organized around eight "so dicators, as are international organizations ernment programs, social workers, public a cial concerns," namely, health, public such as the Conference of European Statis administrators, and a broad array of social e safety, education, employment, income, ticians (4). the Organization for Economic researchers and practitioners. Out of this n housing, leisure and recreation, and popu Cooperation and Development (5), the emerged what came to be known qs the lation. The report is the first of its kind to United Nations Research institute for So "social indicators movement." an apt des r be issued by the U.S. government. Its pub cial Development (6), the United Nations ignation in that, as in all movements in d lication is symptomatic of the widespread Educational. Scientific and Cultural Orga their initial stages, the participants were o interest in social indicators. nization (7k and the United Nations Food ill-defined as to membership, had little or d This interest is further reflected in a so and Agriculture Organization (f), ganization. and shared few specific objec d cial indicators bibliography that was pub "Social indicators," and allied phrases, tives, but sensed great needs and opportu lished in late 1972 (2). More than half of "social accounting," "social reporting," nities for change, celebrated shared but the 1000 or more items listed in the bibli* and "monitoring social change" came into necessarily ambiguous symbols, and were e use by social scientists, commentators, and led by able and articulate idealists. Dr. SKekio, is prewdoM ot she Soci*l Same, H*- policy-makers in the mid-1960'a. These From the ambiguity of the early dis 8 sards Covsal, 605 Third Avares, New York. N.Y. toots. Mr. F.rtc si director oT (It* CossodT. CessUr phrases and the ideas they represented cussions several distinguishable types of t lor Cooidioatson of Rewards am Social IsdkttMt. 1755 MuudsssMtU Asrcssm. NW, Wuhiogioo, D C. emerged from an awareness of rapid social rematch activities have emerged. c 20036. change, from a sense ofemerging problems Social indicator*. Conceptual, method- J IS MAY 1975 69J ucc 024984