Document MJ9e6M9oMjDX61o21V3bp6BeV

16 May 1975, Volume 188, Number 4189 AtrS- Yj ^' c'' Tor fair hearings, due process, and public access 10 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 re lation growth in our time, largely a con 2) To develop suitable criteria and pro sponsibility are not near, one need only sequence of advances in medical science, cedures for the objective and impartial consider, 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' Galileo and Darwin. In our time, however, earth and raises the specter of catastrophic the Association to review specific instances such problems have changed in character, famines. in which scientific freedom is alleged to and have become far more numerous, These and other problems have led to in have been abridged or otherwise endan more urgent, and more complex. Science tense and often bitter disputes among gered. or responsible scientific conduct is and its applications have become entwined members of the scientific community, and alleged to have been violated. ' with ihe,,whole- fabric of our lives and between scientists and policy-rpakers^*As. ^v^hejull text of our report in response to<*&- - ' thoughts. On'the one hand, basic science examples we may recall the^controversies ' this charge is being issued as a special pub has enlarged our intellectual horizons-- over the biological hazards of nuclear lication of the AAAS. Here we set forth one need only mention as examples the vis weapons testing, over the use of defoliants the major features of that report more tas opened up by the formulation of quan and herbicides in the Vietnam War, over briefly. tum mechanics and the discovery of the ge the effects of DDT and other chlorinated netic code. Applied science has largely hydrocarbon pesticides, over the antiballis- freed mankind from the terrors of infec tic missile program, over the supersonic The Scientific Community: tious 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 science. These include not only nuclear conflicts the contestants are often unevenly The American scientific community, as weapons with their incomparable powers matched, with powerful industrial and gov we define it, includes a wide range of very of devastation but also such organic chem ernmental forces on one side and a small diverse individuals--basic scientists in uni icals as the dioxins, accidentally discovered group of critics on the other. There have versities, research institutes, and govern as contaminants of certain herbicides, been attempts to suppress important scien ment laboratories: engineers: workers in which can kill guinea pigs at dosages as tific data that appeared unfavorable to the medicine and public health; graduate stu low as 600 parts per trillion (/) and arc policies of some powerful organizations. If dents and technicians working on scientific perhaps comparably poisonous for human wise policy decisions are to he made amid problems; and teachers of science in col beings. The unprecedented rate of papu such pressures, there is a compelling need leges and secondary schools. The dis cussion that follows applies primarily to Thii article n ait abbreviated vrioft of the report of the AAAS Committee on Scientific Freedom and Rcaponbility, prepared on behalf of the Committee by John T. Edaatl. The member* of the Committee, which was estab* 11shed in 1970, are: Allen V. Amn, Director bmentusof the National Bureau of Standard* and Home Secretary of the National Academy of Sciences, Chairman: John T. Edsall, Professor of Biochemistry Emeritus, Harvard Uni versity; Walter J. Hickd. former Governor of Alaska and former U.S. Secretary of *he Interior John H- Knowles, President of the Rockefeller Foundation: Earl Warren, former Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (who died in July 1974); and Dorothy Zinbcrg, Lecturer in Sociology, Harvard University. Mary Catherine Bateson, Asso ciate Professor in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Northeastern University, served on the Com mittee until early 1971 Reprints of this article can be obtained from Dr. Edull et (he Biological Laboratories, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138. The full report of the Committee, Scientific Freedom and Responsibility, can be obtained from the Association st a cost of $2.95 for members and SJ.45 for nonmembers. Checks should be made payable to the American Asso ciation for the Advancement of Science and orders sent to the Association at 1515 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington. D.C. 2000$. scientists involved in basic or applied re search, but in large measure it is relevant to the whole scientific community. The Committee concluded, early in its deliberations, that issues of scientific free dom and responsibility are basically in separable. Scientific freedom, like aca demic freedom (2), is an acquired right, generally accepted by society as necessary for the advancement cf knowledge from which society may bencln Scientists pos sess no rights beyond those of other citi zens except those necessary to fulfill the re sponsibilities arising from their special knowledge, and from the insight arising front that knowledge. Later we shall have much to say of the activities often referred to as "whistle blowing" in which issues of freedom and responsibility are 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 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 Tor 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 ter public, he faces obvious risks that may include the loss of his job. If whistle blow ers are to be encouraged to take such risks - and wc believe that ihcy should be encouraged, when serious issues are in volved--they must be assured of some form or due process in passing judgment on the issues that they raise. This would call for the presence of outside independent members on any board that passes judg ment on the issues, and should also include some right of appeal. We return to these matters later. Should There Be Forbidden A rcas in Basic Research? Those for whom the advancement of knowledge is a supreme value might be lieve that, m basic research as distinct from applied science and technology, no subject should be declared off limits. Vet there are clear inhibitions on some kinds of research involving human beings, and indeed ani mals, Today we are increasingly conscious of the need for informed consent in studies 688 of hull1 n physiology and behavior that may in1 nlve risk to ihe experimental suhject. uh young children, informed con sent is impossible to obtain; parents or guardians must take the heavy responsi bility of giving consent for (he child. Some experiments may endanger the health, or even the lives, of the participants; some 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 tempt to obtain their informed consent, al though wc 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 arc fortunately seldom called for, but they may well be needed from lime 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 cules of the Assembly of Life Sciences of the National Academy or Sciences. Their views have received wide public attention; of course, this committee has no police powers to enforce its recommendations, but its influence is great and as yet appears not to have been seriously challenged. The members of the committee are well aware of the dilemma; the experiments that are, for the present, being renounced are not only of great scientific interest but also might make positive contributions to hu man health and well-being. The decision involves an expert baianecd judgment of probabilities and risks (Ja). The grounds cited for refraining from these experiments to protect human beings from possible new and dangerous infections - are quite different from the ethical problems of present or future "ge netic engineering." as with the possible production of multiple copies of people with identical genotypes by cloning. The suggested threats here are not so much to health as to human integrity, dignity, and individuality. It seems to us proper to he on the alert for such possible threats, but we see no justification as yet for atlcmpi to impose restrictions on the freedom i genetic research. Wc hold that the djngci today are remote, and that they arc dcci sivcly outweighed hy the great benefits tha such research can bring. Restrictions on Needed Research:, Fetal Research as an Example As wc have said above, the advancemeni of knowledge hy research must often h< balanced against risks to experimental 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, hanned research on any "living" human fetus, either before or after 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 fetal research had been in effect. Especially notable is Rh disease, which is now totally preventable, thanks in considerable pun to fetal re search. The human fetus ix extremely sus ceptible to many drugs, as the thalidomide disaster dramatically demonstrated. Like wise, the fetus is far more susceptible to ra diation damage than the adult. Research on fetuses that do not survive abortions can help us to discover how to give protec tion from such harmful agents to thou sands of other fetuses that are destined to reach full term and to grow into healthy adults. We would urge that fetal research not only he permitted hut intensified, sub ject to careful peer review of the research projects involved. The Conflict between Science and Secrecy Many scientists, especially those em ployed in industrial firms and in some gov ernment laboratories, spend much or most of their lime in work classified as secret. Often the grounds for secrecy appear com pelling. Nevertheless, science inevitably suffers from the imposition of secrecy on a SCIENCE. VOL i k ucc 006714  rebirth project 1 he re.isons ere *cll w.in spectacular Oidv a lew biological ex there is something inherently evil all.mi st.oed m the report ol the A A VS Com- perts warned ol trouble at lhai lime grad tcchnnlogv I ochnology has been indis- mu tee on Sucncc in the Promotion of llu- ually problems apm.ired as insect pesls pertsahle lor the rise of all eiv iltz.itnins. .mil nuti W el.re t*V p I""') I rev vlissvniin.iiinn ..1 indirm.ilmii .nut <i|vcn is .in cnnciiii.iI pjrt ol ilic nciciuiIic pr.i.CNN Lath separate study of nature viclds .m appruNim.ilc rccult and incvmihiy contains nihiic errorv and iniussnins Science pete ,11 the truth hv a c.intmuiiuN procecN of Neir-c\.iiiiin.tti.in which reniedicN umiNNionN and corrects eirors "This procecN requires free diselosure of resells, pcncrjl diNNeniinaiion of findings inter, prci.ituinc. cnncliiNiunN. and widespread cen- developed resist.wise to 1)1)1. as. in mam eases, the pe'siieide desiruyed Ihc natural enemies ol the pesls, as the long pen sislenee of DDT in soil was discovered, and ils progressive concentration in lood chains led lo the killing ol great numbers of certain birds and fishes All this has led. in the United Slates, to ihc hanning of DDT for nearly all uses, Ycl in countries where malaria is wnlesprc.nl, ihc spraying new tccliiniliigv is essential lor l lie surv i, a! ol imr uwn unliz,ilii'ii As an example vn nccJ only incminn tlie need lor die dcci opulent of new energy sources solar and geolherm.il energy and nuclear lusion, lor instance dial may he less polluting than lossil lucl.s and less hazardous than nuclear fission. Likewise we reicct ihc notion of die socalled "leehnvilogie.il imperative" die licaimn and cfiiiciNin of results and conclusions. ol house interiors with DDT has proved idea that we must pursue new tech Thai report provided Npeetlie examples lo illuNtr.tte tliecc ficiier.il conclusions and showed that secrecy almost always im pedes setcnnlte progress, in applied science and technology tl 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 such cases information should remain clas sified only for a limned and specified time: it should then be released automatically, unless .1 si rung specific case can be made for withholding a particular piece of inlorntalion lor a further limited lime We should look at claims of "national secu rity" wuh a very critical eye; such claims, as we have good reason to know from re cent experience, oflen serve to cover up governmental ineptitude or corruption. ihc most effective .iniimalan.il technique available In Sri l.anka (Ccvlon) malaria had almosi disappeared hv 1963. when Ihc DDT program was slopped. Then, in I96X and 1969, there was an explosive increase in the number of infections. In 1967 only 3,465 cases had been reported: in 196b the number rose to 425,937. and in early 1969 the rule of infection was even higher (10), Other factors were at work, of course: the World Health Organization allnbuled the rise in the incidence of malaria in large part lo conditions lhat were unusually fa vorable to the hrecding ol the Amiphele* mosquilo and to unusual human popu lation movements that helped lo spread ihc infection (//). Nevertheless, until we hjvc something heller, DDT appears lo be an essential component of any major program of malaria control Other complexities have arisen in con nection with programs for international development. Danis and irrigation schemes have vastly increased the in nological possibilities, wherever they inav lead. Thousands ol projects nuv be leshiii calls feasible, including the destruction ..I all human life on Larlh. Even among those projects that appear attractive at lirst sight, careful appraisal may lead to die 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 Tor 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 orgilled and imagina tive technologists deserves a high prioriiv among our nanonal needs, hut the multiple repercussions of new technology need to be critically evaluated before they are in troduced and constantly monitored alter their lirst introduction. Many schemes dial are technically brilliant must he rcicetcd because their wider impact would, on die whole, be more damaging than bene cidence of bilharziusis (.schistosomiasis), a ficial, In some cases it would be prefer Technology and Innotation: Their Multiple and Complex Effects debilitating disease lor which there is as vel no effective cure (/7l The disastrous effects of the recent catastrophic droughts able. in the eyes of some thoughllul sci entific policy advisers, not lo carry a project from the stage ot research even in the Sahel region, south of the Sahara, into preliminary development, lest pres When we turn from the problems of ba have been accentuated by some tech sures would then arise lhat would lead to sic science to those of applied science and nological innovations, notably, for ex its full development. technology, the problems of freedom and ample, by the drilling of thousands oT deep responsibility become even more formi boreholes which have lapped the ahundant dable. Whatever the intentions of tech water Tar below the surface. The resultant Cnndiets Involving Scientific Ereedum f nological innovators, the results of in novation arc always more complex than wells encouraged a great increase in the and Responsibility si/e of the cattle herds: pasture instead of the innovators intended, and usually more water became the limiting factor in num We turn now to the second item in die cumplex than they could even imagine. bers of cattle. As pasture dried up in ihc charge to this Committee, winch calls Inr These facts, m our time, have created a drought, countless thousands of dead and us "to develop suitable criteria and proce compelling need for the assessment of ma dying cattle were clustered around the dures for the objective and impartial study jor technological innovations, and for their boreholes, while the surrounding land, for of these problems." The conflicts that call critical evaluation and control. The so- miles around, was ravaged by trampling Tor such study generally lie til the realm >>f called "side effects" of innovation arc of and overgrazing. These wells, drilled by applied science and technology, including ten deleterious and not infrequently are so men of good will and technical skill in or medicine and public health. In most in pronounced that they dominate the pri der lo bring more water to the people and stances they involve the right, and the re mary effect that was intended. cattle of the Sahel, became a major factor sponsibility, of an employee to warn con The history of the use of DDT provides in intensifying a great human and natural cerning the dangers inherent in some prod an example of such complexity (9). Its use disaster (13), uct or process with which he has become brought a dramatic halt lo a cholera epi These illustrations could be multiplied a familiar in the course of his work; that is. demic in Naples m World War II; its ini hundredfold. Let us add at once that we the "whistle blowing" activity of which we tial success in destroying agricultural pests are not among those who consider that have spoken earlier. The employer niav : 16 MAY IV7S 6SV ucc 006715 pul intense pressure on the emploxee to and against the engineers The managers keep quiet, the employee may he fired, or then told the three engineers that they life m.n he m.tde so uncomfortable ih.it lie c.milil choose between resinning and heing decides to resign Interested parties mu' bred, tfics refused to resign and were sum- seek tu suppress scientific data that are vi marilv dismissed Subsequent events vindi tal lor the proper resolution of a con cated their concern The ATC system troversy On the other hand, the employee may he acting not in the public interest hut oul ol prejudice or spue against the em failed on several occasions; the failures were so dangerous that the system could not be used, and it became necessary to ployer To be an "oh|oetive and impartial" judge in such circumstances is not easy; one person's "objectivity" looks like bias to another III all these eases scientific' evi control the trains in the traditional man ner The California Society of Professional Engineers (CSI'L) initialed an inquiry. dence is an essential pan ol the Whole Situ However, DART's top management ation, hut wise decisions involve complex refused to meet with them, or to oiler ex human factors, ethical Judgments, and planations to anyone Then CSI'E under standards ol value that go lar beyond took a lull investigation of the firings, purely scientific' argument We consider which brought out much disturbing infor briefly a Tew specific eases, before dis mation. and the California State Legisla cussing criteria and procedures. ture set in motion a study, resulting in a re The problem oj standards for exposure port (the "Post Report") which essentially to radiation. A few years ago, Drs. J. W. confirmed the warnings of the three engi Gofman and A. R. Tamplin, who worked neers. Although CSPE took tentative steps at the laboratories of the Atomic Energy toward a court action on behalf of the engi Commission (AEC) in Livermore, Califor neers, the society did not follow through on nia, claimed that existing standards for ex this. The engineers themselves launched a posure to ionizing radiation were far too suit against BART for SKXfi.OOO, the out tolerant, and would permit a large increase come ol which we have not yet learned in the number ol deaths from cancer if ex </*) - posures rose to the allowed levels. They The rase ofdata suppression concerning publicized their views widely. The chicl au ! the i oninogenintv of xinxl chloride In thorities in the AhC sharply opposed these May 1970 an Italian investigator, Dr, P. L. views and held them to be invalid Gofman Viola, reported at a cancer congress that and Tamplin eventually left the AEC, after high concentrations of vinyl chloride what they believed to be considerable ha caused cancer in rats. Up to that lime there rassment, and eventually the AEC did im had apparently been no research in the pose considerably stricter radiation stan plastics industry concerning the possible dards for the protection of workers within hazards of vinyl chloride, although lens of its jurisdiction, A committee appointed by thousands of workers were exposed to it. the National Academy of Sciences, alter More than a year later, the Manufacturing intensive study, produced a report, com Chemists Association (MCA) in the monly known as the BEIR (Biological Ef United States initiated us own research fects of Ionizing Radiation) Report (M). and in October 1972 entered into an agree which stands at present as the most author ment with the plasties manufacturers, who itative statement on the hazards of ionizing sponsored the European research, to share radiation. In our full report we consider this controversy at somewhat greater length. information but not to reveal it without the consent of the European manufacturers. In August 1972 Dr. Cesare Maltoni of Bo The rase of the BAHT engineers. A ma logna found angiosarcomas and various jor feature of the Bay Area Rapid Transit tumors in experimental animals exposed to (BART) system in the San Francisco Bay vinyl chloride concentrations as low as 250 area was to be the Automated Train Con parts per million (ppm). At that time the trol (ATC) system, for which a contract allowed exposure limit for workers in the was awarded to the Westinghouse Electric United States was 500 ppm. In January Corporation in 1967. Beginning in April 1973 U.S. scientists visited Dr. Maltoni 1969, three of Ihe engineers on the project and learned of his findings. However, they became increasingly concerned about what did not notify the National Institute of Oc they saw as serious defects in the system. cupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) They expressed their concerns to the man agement but drew no significant response except vague warnings not to be "trouble concerning these extremely ominous find ings, nor did they make any attempt to warn the public or the workers exposed to makers." I.atc in 1971 the three engineers vinyl chloride. In late January 1973 decided to lake their case to the Board of Directors; this led to a public hearing in l-ehruarx 1972. after which the Board voted It) to 2 in favor of the management NIOSH requested information on possible hazards associated with occupational ex posure to 23 chemical substances, includ ing vinyl chloride On 7 March. MCA re (.`HI sponded by recommending a precautionarx label that made no mention of toxiv effects on animals or people; in other words, it appears to have deliberately deceived NIOSH regarding the true facts Apparently MCA has claimed that the withholding of data was due to their agree ment with the European manufacturers to keep the data confidential until an agree ment for their release could be worked out. The fact remains that, because of the sup pression ol these data, tens of thousands of workers were exposed without warning, for perhaps some 2 years, to toxic concentra tions of vinyl chloride. On 22 January 1974, B. I- Goodrich announced that three polyvinyl chloride workers, in just one of their plants, had died ol angiosarcoma of the liver since 1971 On the same day MCA revealed the Maltoni data to NIOSH. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, on 5 April, in an emergency action lowered the permissible exposure level from 500 to 50 ppm; drastic further lowering, to 1 ppm or less, is in prospect (16). The evidence here seems clear a consid erable number ol scientists were aware of the hazards of vinyl chloride long belore the facts were made available to NIOSH or to the public; yet they kept quiet and gave no warning. As the Federation of American Scientists states, ", . . industrial scientists who fail to challenge conspiracies of silence within their firms are not re buked; rather, they are often quietly re warded for their loyalty." In industrial medicine and public health similar situations often arise. In recent books Paul Brodeur (17) and Rachel Scott (IK) have described the medical problems of workers exposed to asbestos particles, beryllium dust, and other hazards. Many of these workers develop cancer, or fatal respiratory or other diseases, over the course of 10 or 20 years: the risk is high. Yet the company physicians who look af ter the workers sometimes join their em ployers in minimizing the need for more rigorous standards of health protection. This appears to be a clear abdication of the prime responsibility of physicians or public health workers to place the health of the people for whom they are responsible be fore all other considerations. Obviously a doctor who is paid by a commercial enter prise will find it very difficult to act con trary to the policy of the company. The doctor who works for an independent in specting agency will be in a much stronger position. Even so, we know from experi ence that regulatory agencies often become the subservient allies of the organizations that they are supposed to regulate and may collaborate with the commercial organiza tion in concealing the hazards. ucc 006716 ScilnCB, vol ms Criteria and I'roccduri's fur the Kwilution nf < millicls Having now indicated the character ol the prohlcms, vie nn lurn to criteria jnd procedures th.it may aid in resolving them We approach the problem ol establishing criteria by asking questions rather than by olTcring answers. How will the proposed decision or procedure alleet human health and safety, and the general quality and amenities of life, for all the people con cerned'' Will a decision to require a drastic cleanup of operating conditions in a cer tain industry cause much of the industry lo close down, with loss of jobs and produc tion' How should such risks be balanced against considerations ol safely and health'' What arc the possible large-scale environmental effects of the present opera tions and of the proposed changes? Have possible future effects been carefully con sidered, as, for instance, with the widely used aerosols, which liberate Freons that, in a decade or two, might (but again per haps might not) destroy much of the o/onc in the stratosphere? These are some of the problems that will have to be faced in the formulation of criteria Obviously it is far easier lo impose suitable regulations on a new enterprise than on a powerful industry that is already established, with a huge capital investment and with faults of oper ation and production that are already deeply entrenched. Thus the need for fore sight in technology assessment is over whelming; yet foresight is always imperfect and needs constantly to be corrected by further experience. We turn now to procedures; how is the whistle blower lo be assured of a fair hear ing, "without fear ol reprisals, and with a good prospect that his recommendations, if they are found to be sound, will actually be pul into practice? Many scientific and engineering societies have developed codes of ethics relating to the responsibility of employers and to the professional and per sonal conduct of scientific and technical employees. A highly articulate expression of such concerns is to be found in a state ment on "Employment Guidelines," which has now been adopted by at least 20 engi neering and scientific societies. For the most part, it Is concerned with the general principles that should govern relations be tween employers and employees, but it also contains the significant statement: "The professional employee should have due re gard for the safety, life and health of the public and fellow employees in all work for which he/she is responsible. Where the technical adequacy of a process or product is involved, he/shc should protect the pub lic and his/her employer by withholding of plans that do not meet accepted profes- 16 MAY 1671 sional standards and I v presenting clearly the consequences to expected d Ins/hci professional judgmem is not lollowed" (IV. p W) The formulalion ol such a declaration is a significant event. How much it means de pends, ol course, on the effectiveness with which it is applied. Moreover, these guide lines, like most such codes of ethics that wc 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.ii. Constitution provides that "no person shall , . he deprived of life, liherty, or property without due pro cess of law." We believe that some form of due process should be an essential pari of any employer-employee agreement or con tract, lo 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 lo some reasonably neutral hul professionally qualihcd higher authority. Codes of prolessional ethics are likely to be ineffective unless some type of due process is provided lor the resolution of disputes. Without this, scientific free dom is likely lo be abridged. We therelore strongly recommend that all employment contracts involving scicntilic 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. Professional Societies as Protectors of the Public Interest How active can, and should, profes sional societies be in actively fighting on behalf of their members who arc 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. Wc believe that such attitudes arc 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 affect 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 War. individual members ol I lie societies, when I heir vonccrn is aroused, should deal wiili iIicm: mailers l>> Ollier mechanisms. However, in mailers directly related lo the prolessional competence of members of the society, where the public interest is clcarlv in volved, wc believe (hat the societies can and should play a much more active role than they have m the past. They can deal with such issues hy setting up committees of inquiry in cases where a serious viola tion of scicntilic freedom or responsibility is suspected; by publicizing the results of the inquiry in prolessional journals, and. if necessary, in the more popular journals and in the news media: and by calling ihc matter to the attention of govcriimciu.il bodies, as with the California Legislature in the BAKT ease. They can on occasion launch lawsuits on behalf ol lheir members who have apparently suffered injustice when acting on behalf of the public inter est. In staling this, our major new proposal for dealing with "the objective and impar tial study of these problems," we are aware or the difficulties that the proposal will lace. The most serious problems are iliosc of lime and money Most professional so cieties have limited funds; many operate more or less on a shoestring. Thev keep members' dues fairly small; otherwise members drop out, particularly in times of economic hardship. The lighting of dillicull cases, on behalt 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 lo 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 tight 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 lo lake actions of the latter sort is likely to be much less strong than the desire to provide direct help lo members of one's own professional group. These are powerful obstacles to our pro posals, hut they are not insuperable. .So cieties that share common inleresis, hut which may lie individually too weak lnianeially lo 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 seientilie community to face these public issues and deal with them ef fectively. These pressures come both Irom the public and from within the ranks of the scientists themselves We are well aware of the mistrust and hostility toward science (.ii ucc 006717 that is manliest in many quarters; one rellcctmn of this altitude is ihe decline in government support of scientific research in recent years. Such hostility will almost certainly grow unless scientists exhibit greater concern for preventing ihe 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; hut it is likely that some of the major private founda tions. cither those now in existence or those yet to be created, will see the urgency of supporting such public service activities. The need for 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 toiincrcased activity of the professional so cieties as the most hopeful approach to the problem in the immediate luturc. The Kolc of the A A AS in the Defense of Scientific freedom and Responsibility We now consider the third charge from Ihe 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 Ihe AAAS is very broad, including all of ilic sciences and a large number of prolessional societies which belong to il as alliliales. Hence, by its nature the AAAS can not undertake the role that we have envisaged for the professional societies in the preceding section. The number of pos sible appeals to the AAAS. if il 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 and deal only with those that were at once so important and 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, arc now formulating, or revising, codes of eth ics for their members, which will involve policies for dealing with issues such as we have been discussing here The AAAS cun 692 help in pu'i uk an exchange of mlormuiion on these ''Killers among ihe diiVcrcnl so cieties anti thereby promote a more unilied 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 seientilie conduct, through active discussion of such matters in Scirncr. 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 or the most important channels now available for bringing such problems lo ihe 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 lo set them forth m its pages In some cases, it will he desirable lo present two or more articles by different authors, ex pressing more or less contradictory points of view. In seienulic controversies, n should noi be necessary for ihe champions of dilferenl views to operate like adver saries in a 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 m such cases usually turn not on Ihe seientilie fuels but on Ihe relative weight to he given lo dillerenl Kindi ol scicntilic laels. and on exlraseieniilie 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 stales a ease 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 ;in investigation of the effects of defoliants and herbicides in Vietnam. This was an important attempt to obtain scien tific evidence on an issue that had aroused passionate conlrovcrss (Jti) Ihe National Academy ot Sciences, ul ihe request ol Congress, later undertook a more exten sive study of the same prohlcms, with in creased financial support provided by ihe 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 he resolved later, when it is possihlc to con duct studies of the Vietnamese forests on the ground m a peaceful selling, as long as war continues, only aerial observations arc possihlc. 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 m mat ters such as wc have considered in this re port? I he National Academy has specia, prestige and a unique relation to the li S government It. and Us committees, can speak on many issues with lar more au thorny Ilian the AAAS. and it can gener ally command much more financial sup port lor its investigations However, ihe AAAS, with its much broader member ship, is more widely representative ol American science in general, and its greater independence from government! lies gives it a greater freedom of action Both organizations clearly have very mi porlant and somewhat dillerenl roles t. play in the maintenance ol scientific Iree dom and responsibility The problems we have been considering here will certainly continue and will proh ably become more numerous and mori acute in the years to come. We hope lhai the concern of the AAAS will continue We suggest that, not more than 5 yearhence, the AAAS should reexamine thi whole problem, perhaps by setting up . committee similar to this one, to see when we stand at that time. Alternatively or ii addition, it might set up a committee lo re ceive complaints concerning violations o scientific freedom and responsibility am refer them, when possible and desirable, U appropriate bodies for further study am possible action. Such a committee shoult not itself serve as a judicial body; its func lions should be to refer complaints for pos sihle action elsewhere and to analyze thinformation received, with an eye lo pos sihle recommendations concerning futur policy initiatives hy Ihe AAAS in tile ligh of this inlorniJUon, The terms ol relercnv S< 11 Nl'l V (>|, IX ucc 006718 V such .1 committee would need to be vers eurelulK dr;in, to prevent the eomnniiee from betn(! overwhelmed by a mass of un manageable complaints, a4 Viic* 1 ftvr\f>i,i tnr on (blofinulcd ()ihrri:tuJio\in\ and lhhi'i\:>`luron\ (I fnironnH.nt.il Health Perspcctivf*. Lipcnmcntjl l\>uc No 5. Department of Health, t-.duvanun. jiui Welfare Publication Nn NIH 74-I2H. National Institute of l-nviron* mental Health Sucrntn Bits I223T Rcw-ireh 1 nangle Park, N C , September 1971) Several arti cles deal *ith the toxioty of the dtoxmv See particular!;* table 4 m (he article by R Baughman and M S Meselson. pp 27 25. which summarizes the results of earlier workers 2 V | arlc. l.d . On A*ademir Freedom (American Enterprise Institute. W ashmgton. DC. 1971) J P Berg et al, Sconce 1X5, 303 (1974). N, Wade. ibid p 3)2 3a In hehruars 1975. an international conference of experts at ihe Asilomar Conference Center in Cali* forma dev oil'd several sl.is - ol intensive discussions to this prohkiit ant! . < >rV lutli*1 with .i rcsomnivn(Jalion lo I it l the voluntary inoralonum on most of these proposed genetic experiments However, such experiments v*trL to be done onh suhjeti to rigorous precauitons for containment of the possihiv hazardous organisms, the stringency of the precautions increasing with the eMimjtcd risk m different categories of experiments. Indeed, for many of the possible experiments, the required lonitiiiuiis t.innol b* net wolmui the ilevclopmenl of new organisms amt new lechnigiK's. s* (fiat the moratorium is n ct'' .l being continued lor siuh experiments Sec S Wade. ,Vcn*n<r IK7. 9)1 (I ^ I 4 I k.u/, I d . A Tprrf'fniaiiiHt hi lb Hunion Hetng\ (H i.ssi II Sage I ound i'ion No* York. 1972) 5 Conival Studies m (lie Human Ihe 1 thix.il and Sosntdiv Problems " svmposium h> A ( B.irnes R Q Marston. B Barber, and J hat/ Jbend Sunt 23, S93(I97J)| ft B J C ulliton. Science 145, 42ft (1974) 7 1 I Bchrman. Ne% Yuri, Time* (9 June 1974). opposite editorial page X A A AS Committee on Science in the Promotion of Human Welfare. "The integrity of science," Am ,Si 53, I74(l9ftk) 9 (-or 4 useful short history of the use of DDT. see G Mclntirc. Environment (St Loam 14 (No 6). 14 (1072) 10 These figures are from World Health Organization Relae Epidemiologique Hebdomadaire (8 August l%9) 11 R. Garcia. Environment (St Eaum 14 (No 5). 2 f)97?) 12 l-or numerous examples of this and many other problems m international development schemes, see Hu ( urrlf" Ituhimlug\ fm/un and InurnuiioiHii (>r\ri>>puivm M I I .mar and l P Mil* ion I ds (Natural History Press. Garden City. N't IV72) 13 C Sterling, Atlantn Month!i (May 1974), p VX, N W ade. Science |H5. 234 (1974). 14. Report of the Advisory Committee on the Biologi* cal Lfleets of Ionizing Radiations. The Effects on Reputations of Exposure to Low t.evett of Ionizing AWniii.^ 11,i.i>in nt Mcili, .11 N. j,ru. V N.in,tn.il Academy of NtiL'mo NaiuMul Kevearih < ounul, Washington. J)< !'>72) 15 Out ikssnfMmn is taken limn a mvvfv detailed re* port hy S (I Unger |""1 he HAKI Case I I hits and the i'ftiplovcxi 1`ftpincer." in*/ Eh'itr l hr* iron fug ( 4/tntn \oi /(///* ulmni tiuhunf bend \n 4 (Sept 1973). p, ft (V khg, Id. 497 Pjfk Avenue 1 voniu, N I 07ft05)| 1ft Our distussion is based on led Am Si /Vn/ Hull 2 (Nvi X), I (1974) 17. P Hrodcur. Expendable Amerutin\ (Viking Press, New York, 1974) Concerning the hj/ards of as-' bestos, and steps taken to control them, also A k Ahmed. I) M MacLeod, I < armoOt |/#irrronment (St /.in)H|Nn 10). Ift (|972)| IX, R Scott, Muscle and Blood (Dutton, New York. 1974) 19 Statement on "Employment Guidelines." !nu Elnt Electron Eng Spectrum 1973. 57 (April 1973). The statement has been adopted h> at least 20 engineering and scientific societies 20 M S Meselson, A H Westing. J I) Constable Herbicide Assessment Commission of the Amen* cjn Association for the Advancement ol Science. Background Material Relevant to Presentations at the 197(1 Annual Meeting of ihe AAAN |repnntcd m ihe ('iiHgrewi/inul tin rd IIX (No 12) s*22h s32JJ(3 March 1972)) 21 Commilict' on the ('fleets ol Herbicides in \ul- njin. the Effi\is of Iferbhidei m *umfh I ici/ium (National Acadcmv of Sciences. Washington. DC'-. 1974), 22. Concerning this controversy, we, lor mMjnic. D Shapley (.Vrien<r 1X3. 1171 (1974)) and C Nor man [Nature 1 tjmd, 124B, 1X6(1974)). Social Indicators Social science researchers are developing concepts and measures of changes in society. Eleanor Bernen Sheldon and Robert Parke A statistical report enutled Social In. dicaiors, 1973 was published last year by the U.S. Office of Management and Bud* get (/). Social Indicators contains charts and tables presenting statistical time series selected and organized around eight "so cial concerns," namely, health, public safety, education, employment, income, housing, leisure and recreation, and popu lation. The report is the first of its kind to be issued by the U.S. government. Its pub lication is symptomatic of the widespread interest in social indicators. This interest is further reflected in a so cial indicators bibliography that was pub lished in late 1972 (2). More than half of the 1000 or more items listed in the bibli- Dr Sheldon ts president of the Social Science Re search Council, 605 Third Avenue. New York, N.Y 10016, Mr Parke is director of the Council's Center for Coordination of Research on Social indicators, 1755 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington. DC 16 MAV 197' ographv were issued m 1970, 1971, and 1972. Government agencies both in the United States and abroad (J). as well as private scholars and research institutes, are concerning themselves with social in dicators. as are international organizations such as the Conference of European Statis ticians (4), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (J), the United Nations Research Institute for So cial Development (6), the United Nations Educational. Scientific and Cultural Orga nization (7), and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (8). "Social indicators," and allied phrases, "social accounting," "social reporting," and "monitoring social change" came into use by social scientists, commentators, and policy-makers in the mid-1960's. These phrases and the ideas they represented emerged from an awareness of rapid social change, from a sense of emerging problems with origins deep m the soctal structure. ;md Iron) the ambience ol the early John son Administration which encompassed a commitment lo the idea that the beneMs and costs o! domestic soual programs ;irc subject lo measurement and to the bclicl lhai each newly perceived, albeit ancient, inadequacy in the society should, and would, call forth a corrective response from a federal government whose elltc.tey would be assisted by social measurement, planning, and new management analytical techniques. Impetus was provided b\ a handful of social scientists and public ad ministrators. The enthusiasm elicited re sponses from economists who saw a rote for their skills as theorists and measurers of welfare, sociologists who saw the rele vance of their own research tradition in the measurement of social trends, political sci entists who sought ways lo rationalize gov ernment programs, social workers, public administrators, and a broad array of social researchers and practitioners. Out of this emerged whul came lo be known q.s the "social indicators movement/" an apt des ignation in that, as in all movements in their initial stages, the participants were ill-defined as to membership, had little or ganization, and shared few specific objec tives, but sensed great needs and opportu nities for change, celebrated shared but necessarily ambiguous symbols, and were led by able and articulate idealists. From the ambiguity of the early dis cussions several distinguishable types of research activities have emerged. Social indicators. Conceptual, method- 691 ucc 006719