Science as an institution holds an influential role in our society. A 2016 Pew Research Center survey, for instance, found that the scientific community is the second most trusted institution in the U.S. But there are a host of ethical questions that arise both in the practice of science and in the study of its history.

What does “good” science look like?

Perhaps the most obvious ethical question with respect to science is the question of what methods scientists are permitted to use in their search for knowledge. There are, after all, certain things scientists could do that would likely yield useful data. But most agree there are limits on the methods scientists can employ. For instance, there is broad consensus that at least in most cases, a human test subject must consent to being part of a scientific study. This is the field of research ethics.

“On ‘Doing Your Own Research’” – How do we know what’s true?

“Bad Science, Bad Science Reporting” – Facts without context often do more harm than good.

But are there some questions that shouldn’t be asked?

A more subtle, but equally interesting question, concerns not the methods that scientists are permitted to employ, but rather the questions they are permitted to inquire into. Some take the view that there should be no limits on which questions are pursued. Others think there are moral limits on such questions, and that certain lines of study are morally off-limits. For an example, some argue that research into questions about the relationship between race and IQ is research that morally should not be conducted.

“Forbidden Knowledge” – Some information isn’t fit for public consumption.

“Discussing Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” – Might some disagreements be better brushed under the rug?

“Ethical Considerations in the Lab-Leak Theory” – The pursuit of truth is but one motivation among many.

What counts as scientific fraud? What makes it wrong?

There are also interesting ethical questions about scientific fraud, which occurs when a scientist or group of scientists falsifies or fabricates or otherwise intentionally misrepresents their data. Almost everyone agrees that such fraud is wrong, but interesting questions arise about why it is wrong. Is it because it harms the scientific community? Because it is a kind of lying? And there are also interesting ethical questions about why researchers commit fraud and what structures might be put in place to prevent it. For instance, are the pressures to publish so intense that scientific institutions incentivize fraud? Could better standards for reporting data reduce fraud?

“The Boldt Scandal and Academic Fraud” – Peer review is not with its issues.

“The Moral Dimensions of the Research Reproducibility Crisis” – The problem has many sides.

Are scientists to blame for the consequences of their work?

Another important ethical question about science concerns the distinction between pure science and technological applications of that science. Consider a simple example. A nuclear scientist is interested in nuclear fission purely because she wants to understand the fundamental nature of our physical world. This pure research is then used by other scientists and engineers to develop nuclear weapons. Is the pure scientific researcher insulated from moral criticism of harmful technological applications of her research?

“Can Machines Be Morally Responsible?” – What does it mean to be at fault?

“Establishing Liability in Artificial Intelligence” – Who is ultimately to blame?

“AI and Pure Science” – Shouldn’t all scientific inquiry be judged according to its application?

Have we gotten this wrong in the past?

Ethical questions are also raised when we look at science’s history. Though the history of science is often taught in a sanitized way, it is in fact littered with many ethically questionable practices. This is not to say that science has not led to much improvement in life; it certainly has. But its historical track record is not unblemished. Examples include the Tuskegee syphilis study where African American men were deliberately infected with syphilis and then were not given treatment so scientists could study the progression of the disease. Another example is where members of the Havasupai Tribe in northern Arizona had DNA samples taken. In 1989, members of the tribe gave consent for the samples to be used for diabetes research, but it later was revealed that the samples were being used for research related to schizophrenia, ethnic migration, and population inbreeding.

“The Moral Quandary of Testing on Animals” – Ends justify the means?

“CRISPR Ethics and the Dilemma of Scientific Progress” – What discovery is worth the risk?

But aren’t there always pitfalls in turning science into public policy?

That this is an ethically charged issue was made clear during the COVID-19 pandemic where there was fierce debate about what the science suggested with respect to public policy. There are also questions about whether scientists should speak publicly only narrowly within their area of expertise or are permitted to sometimes enter the broader public debate and speak on policy matters that are not directly part of their scientific expertise.

“The Small But Unsettling Voice of the Expert Skeptic” – Not knowing everything doesn’t mean we know nothing.

“Expert Says It’s Time to Retire ‘Expert Says’ Articles” – Some information shouldn’t be shared.