Should scientists be held legally responsible for their results?

[SourMash_PLH]

Popular Science tells a story about scientists who failed to warn Italians of the certinanty of an impending disaster, and wonders whether scientists should be held responsible for their statements when they are wrong. http://www.popsci.com/science/artic...ally-responsible-their-results#comment-130730.

I comented that the scientists' level of responsibility should be directly proportionate to the certainty with which they made their prognostication (i.e., if you cost a society billions to fight climate change, then you should be held responsible for being correct about the causes that you claimed as causing climae change).

Without some responsibility on the part of scientists, they actually benefit from minimizing public concern about things that they can be obviously and publically wrong about (i.e, earthquakes), and by maximizing concern over issues that are fuzzier and more distant (climate change) so they can extract maximum research funds.

 

[OldGaffer]

We should do away with science all together, everything should go back to the good old days. Scientists think they are smarter than everyone else but we know better, dont we?

 

[Cicero]

Excellent Thread Starter SourMash_PLH. I'm going to comment, but first a bit of housekeeping information. I'm going to move this thread of yours to General Discussions because it's a broader subject matter than environmental specific. If you look inside the Environment Forum afterwards you will see a Redirect Marker for the rest of the day that tells you that the thread has been moved.
===============================

Ever since the dropping of atomic bombs the question of how much responsibility as individuals and groups that scientists should be held accountable for has been an issue.

Should Julius Robert Oppenheimer be held responsible for the deaths at Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Is it a special case because war time measures tend to supersede other issues? What if the United States had somehow lost to Japan after that? Should the Japanese Empire have put Oppenheimer on trial as a war criminal?

My feelings are that scientists cannot be help responsible for the pursuit of science. Governments should possibly be held responsible for moving forward on half-baked or ideologically-based scientific field urgings . . . but then again; how can a mere politician know if scientists are spouting truth or stupidity when they open their mouths?

 

[SourMash_PLH]

Cicero -- sorry for putting you to work .

Your point is well taken. Fritz Haber first invented the method for distilling ammonia from the air, helping to create nitrogen fertilizer, which probably saved literally billions of lives from starvation in the time since. Later, he was key in deploying chlorine and other gasses as weapons in WWI. One gas that he invented, Zyklon, was altered to Zyklon B and used to gas the Jews in WWII (Haber himself was Jewish).

Haber is a good example of a genius who did good, but who also allowed evil governments to do evil (and he was an active proponent of chemical warfare in WWI). Haber was accused of war crimes by the Allies, but I don't think he was ever tried. However, had WWII gone differently (i.e., the bomb had been used, but hadn't ended it, and the Allies lost), there is every likelihood that the politicians, military leaders, and scientists involved in the development and use of the Atomic bomb would have been charged as war criminals.

At minimum, scientists have a fiduciary duty to tell the truth, and to avoid alarm-ism. If a Medical Doctor does measurable harm in the process of engaging in his science, he is held civilly and potentially criminally responsible. Why should any other scientist be treated differently? If a climate scientist, or social scientist, or other pseudo-scientist does harm by raising alarms about their area of 'expertise', and does measurable harm to a nation, or its economy, for what never materializes or simply turns out to be wrong, why shouldn't they be held responsible?

Perhaps, at minimum, scientists who aren't responsible for the outcomes of their work should be identified professionally as something other than a scientist, as a way of illustrating to the public that they are not the same as an engineer, doctor, or other hard-scientist who is responsible for the outcome of their work.

 

[Days]

we also know that their benefit to society is neutralized by their means of funding. sour mash has a legit concern here, and your reply does not treat it fairly. shame on you.

 

[Cicero]

I think that your following thoughts here might be the key to this issue:

Perhaps, at minimum, scientists who aren't responsible for the outcomes of their work should be identified professionally as something other than a scientist, as a way of illustrating to the public that they are not the same as an engineer, doctor, or other hard-scientist who is responsible for the outcome of their work.

I'm thinking that as regards to an ethics or a responsibility measurement, Physicians are held responsible because their decisions directly affect patients and can destroy lives on an immediate basis. An engineer miscalculating bridge stresses -- leading to the death of dozens of people if the bridge collapses -- would be held responsible due to his direct bungling. But . . . what if that's just one engineer on a large panel of engineers giving recommendations on a project that's going to make the Great Wall of China project look like child's play in comparison?

Are all of the engineers advising responsible because one engineer's bad numbers got through the process and then some hand's on project engineer used those bad calculations without checking the math himself?

To bring it back to the concept that if Global Warming is ultimately proved bogus on a scientific basis, are all the scientists who thought otherwise and advocated a bogus theory, guilty of an ethical crime that should be actionable with fines or imprisonment? I would say no; but I certainly wouldn't object to embarrassing them in public as an object lesson.

 

[Days]

I'll tell you what, if Japan had won the war, they sure as heck would have put Oppenheimer and Einstein on trial for crimes against humanity... and they would have found them guilty as beat all, and they would have executed them... no maybe in that scenario.

 

[Queen Titania]

Popular Science tells a story about scientists who failed to warn Italians of the certinanty of an impending disaster, and wonders whether scientists should be held responsible for their statements when they are wrong. http://www.popsci.com/science/artic...ally-responsible-their-results#comment-130730.

I comented that the scientists' level of responsibility should be directly proportionate to the certainty with which they made their prognostication (i.e., if you cost a society billions to fight climate change, then you should be held responsible for being correct about the causes that you claimed as causing climae change).

Without some responsibility on the part of scientists, they actually benefit from minimizing public concern about things that they can be obviously and publically wrong about (i.e, earthquakes), and by maximizing concern over issues that are fuzzier and more distant (climate change) so they can extract maximum research funds.

Science divorced ethics when it was forced to divorce it's self from the Dogma going under the name religion. And so we have corrupt Religion which became Politico Doga and Science which has been usurped by Big Business ......So ethics have a hard time in our explorations of our environment, ourselves and all we know and don't know.

 

[Zam-Zam]

The essence of science is experimentation, trial and error. If you impose a penalty on a researcher for being wrong, you discourage further discovery. Everything has a price.

 

[Days]

ultimately, the avenue for change is to clean up the funding. Money corrupts, not power.

 

[Cicero]

Both corrupt to a certain extent Days, but I would also give the edge to money as the corrupting influence.

 

[888888]

why not politicians being held responsible for their warnings and deeds? Scientist are no different in some cases, they develop a belief and they will direct their research sometimes, to prove their point and get what they think, published. Politicians also do the same thing, derive what direction they want our country to head in and then go about doing things that make us go in that direction. Many times what they do ends up causing much harm, do they ever take responsibility, or be held to pay for their mistakes.

Scientific world for the most part is about proving things right or wrong. about coming up with what will work the best in life. I hardly think that a scientist has an agenda before they start that has to be met, even to the point of lying about it in most cases.

 

[Doc]

No, for a variety of reasons:

#1. Scientists are always dealing with the "unknown." As such, sometimes they have to make "theories," in order to cover some of the missing pieces.
#2. Scientists are one of the few groups (completely unlike the American Bar Association, and others...) where the community really DOES police each other, vehemently.
#3. Few people even listen to Scientists, unless their views and theories are siphoned though some form of Media. This is primarily due to the fact, that most people find it hard to follow Scientific models, and equations....(ie, I LOVE astrophysics, and the like, as presented on a Science Channel. I might even take a class, just for my own interests. BUT...while I am pretty good at math...I'm not going to do those equations....)
#4. Few, if any Scientists set policy for nations. Those who do, CAN be held responsible, depending on their leadership/policy positions. We can not hold Scientists accountable, for what the rest of us do, or decide, regardless of THEIR position on any given issue....

 

[Days]

power just gives access to money, money currupts. that's how it works. there are a few egomaniacs who are corrupted by power but 99% of politicians are in it for the money.

 

[kgswiger]

Popular Science tells a story about scientists who failed to warn Italians of the certinanty of an impending disaster, and wonders whether scientists should be held responsible for their statements when they are wrong. http://www.popsci.com/science/artic...ally-responsible-their-results#comment-130730.

I comented that the scientists' level of responsibility should be directly proportionate to the certainty with which they made their prognostication (i.e., if you cost a society billions to fight climate change, then you should be held responsible for being correct about the causes that you claimed as causing climae change).

Without some responsibility on the part of scientists, they actually benefit from minimizing public concern about things that they can be obviously and publically wrong about (i.e, earthquakes), and by maximizing concern over issues that are fuzzier and more distant (climate change) so they can extract maximum research funds.

That's a great idea. We should just get rid of all of our scientists. That's a quick way to stagnate Western technology.

With responsibility, they benefit from minimizing public concern.

 

[kgswiger]

I'll tell you what, if Japan had won the war, they sure as heck would have put Oppenheimer and Einstein on trial for crimes against humanity... and they would have found them guilty as beat all, and they would have executed them... no maybe in that scenario.

Only if the Emperor were a drooling idiot. They'd have stuck Oppenheimer, Einstein, and all our other top drawer scientists somewhere to work for them. Just like we and the Russians snatched up every German scientist we could get our hands on.

 

[Days]

After Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Dude, maybe the other couple hundred thousand that worked on the Manhattan project, but not the top names.

 

[kgswiger]

After Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Dude, maybe the other couple hundred thousand that worked on the Manhattan project, but not the top names.

Not a chance. They'd have known the Russians got their hands on scientists who were working on Hitler's A-bomb, and couldn't take the risk that the Russians would get their hands on a super-weapon before they did. It's Realpolitik, plain and simple.

 

[Days]

Man that's two threads now where you whooped me bad.

I forgot the time period.

 

[SourMash_PLH]

That's a great idea. We should just get rid of all of our scientists. That's a quick way to stagnate Western technology.

With responsibility, they benefit from minimizing public concern.

First, I'm not sure why so many have jumped from "scientists should be responsible for their statements" to "we shouldn't have scientists".

Second: if responsibility leads to miniizing public concern, then is the inverse also true? Because, that was sort of my point. Now, how do we address it?