Scientific (Mis)Conduct and Social (Ir)Responsibility 27 May 1994, Indiana University, USA

A one day conference entit led Scient~'c (Mis)Conduct and Social (Ir)Responsibility at Indiana University on 27 May 1994 came on the heels of a four day workshop on the teaching of ethics in science. The workshop was designed for scientists from the Big 10 universities who train graduate students in the sciences (with an emphasis on the life sciences). The 28 workshop participants a t tended the one day conference as well as others in history, ethics and the sciences from the midwestern region and elsewhere, bringing the attendance at the conference to approximately 110. This conference was funded by a grant from the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) from the Federal Department of Education as well as local funding from the University. The keynote lecture given by Rosemary Chalk, a staff member at the National Academy of Sciences, was very stimulating. Chalk was the original staff officer for AAAS's Office of Scientific Freedom and Responsibility Committee. She shared with us her historic perspective on the key issues in science and ethics. Much of this she has edi ted into a valuable book entit led Science, Technology and Society, Emerging Relationships, containing a collection of articles and letters to the editor during the per iod 1949-1988 from Science, published by the AAAS in 1988. As Chalk described the 1950's and 1960's, one vicariously lived through those times hearing of the critical episodes... .from Vannevar Bush's vision of the endless frontier enlisting public support for research, to John Edsall 's famous discourse in response to the loyalty oaths resulting from the McCarthy hearings, to C.P. Snow's rejection of the doctrine of ethical neutrality, to Bentley Glass's insistence that science cannot stand alone and that it has an ethical and social basis. In the 1970's and 1980's in the wake of the Vietnam War, there was the emergence of employee protection laws for whist leblowers (by Representative Dingell 's committee), the birth of the AAAS Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibili ty and its award with that name, the emergence of engineers ' disclosing safety issues and a growing tension between professional and social responsibility. Currently, the emphasis in science is on strategic research. Chalk feels that the pressure is on scientists. In her lessons for the future, Chalk includes the need to unders tand the history and the social context for such issues and a need to put education in a broader context, so we are prepared for the social challenges in the times ahead. There were two different and interesting responses to Chalk's talk. First was sociologist Thomas Gieryn from Indiana University whose bot tom line is that science's detachment from values needs to end. Attorney C. K. Gunsalus (University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign) focused on a loss of au tonomy and prestige as science has balked at regulations (such as misconduct in science or the use of human subjects in research) while Congress proceeds to legislate away. Gunsalus concludes that with the new standards for accountability, the rules need to include education as well as research. Mark Frankel, the current staff officer for AAAS's Committee for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility, spoke well on Science as a Socially Responsible Community. He spoke of