Science Seminar Report - Summing up

More questions than answers
In Professor David VandeLinde’s closing remarks he suggested that, despite the lack of concrete conclusions from the meeting, it had been extremely useful in generating a discussion about the compatibility of science and ethics. He highlighted what could be seen as the ‘arrogance of scientists’, in their interactions with the public and suggested that one thing that is clear is the need for further discourse. The enhancement of mutual understanding is worth time and effort, and the public have the right to be educated about research, which at the end of the day they themselves are funding.

Professor VandeLinde also talked about encouraging collaborative links between the UK and the Netherlands, and emphasised the Partnership Programme in Science, funded by the British Council and the NWO, as a useful scheme for building bridges between researchers in both countries. One thing that was apparent from the meeting was that, despite minor differences in structure, the scientific environment in the Netherlands is very similar to that in the UK, as are the pressures that researchers face. These pressures, epitomised by the universal peer review and funding systems, were a recurrent theme over the two days, as they are themselves areas where ethics may be loosely adhered to, as well as being a spur to cross ethical boundaries. The scientists present at the meeting began to question themselves, as much as the system itself: “Why do we accept this so easily? To what extent do we look for alternatives? How hard are we trying to change the system?” They were also forced to exa mine the way that they deal with the communication of their research to the general public. The motives and methods of public engagement were questioned, as was the fundamental relationship between the scientist and his eventual patrons, the general public.

Despite the success of the meeting in initiating discourse on ethical matters in science, the overriding regret was that there was a lack of professional ethicists in attendance. It was felt that a more intense debate could have been held amongst a wider line-up of participants.

Although the meeting generated more questions than answers, the very fact that the participants were confronted with these questions led to a contemplation of issues which before were probably only present in the background. The meeting stimulated these reflections and it is to be hoped that the researchers involved will continue the discourse in their respective institutions and thereby enhance the grass roots awareness of the issues.

Continue > Case studies