To what extent are scientists morally responsible for the applications of their discoveries?

Question

be very specific if you can, give reasons etc

Answer 1

Moral responsibility? None. By definition, science is free from morality.

Einstein and the scientists at los alamos did not cause the bomb to be dropped. The leaders of the U.S. and Japan made that decision.

The wright brothers & davinci were looking for manned flight as a possibility, not how their aircraft could have clusterbombs strapped to them.

Should george washington carver be blamed for the fact that I like to feed my dog peanut butter because it makes me laugh?

Answer 2

No simple or strict answer, but moral judgment is based on the acquired knowledge of the outcome of an action. Scientists would have to have prior knowledge of the possible actions that another person would take with that invention. There is nothing new in the world because its potential was built in the beginning. Some scientist know the scope of the applications of their inventions from assigned goals of that project...other scientist stumble onto great inventions without set goals or preconceived ideas about its use.
A rock on the ground is harmless...a boulder on the ground can be climbed to reach higher, but one could fall and be injured...a thrown rock can harm someone. All the same invention...without potential till it is used. So, the person using an invention is responsible for the choice to do good or harm.
It would be wise to try to think and report all possible outcomes of a discover and to report them, but all things may not be thought or known until later.
I think that a preset goal to invent something to harm someone would be liable...but a preset goal of the same invention to protect one's self could be held without liable.
NV

Answer 3

The scope of moral science is broader than what is taught to children in primary school and has a practical significance that cannot be taught in classrooms by a teacher or read from a textbook. In fact, moral science goes beyond the basic distinction between good and bad conduct, right and wrong behaviour and the do’s and don’t’s which are typically laid down by society and followed blindly from generation to generation without raising any questions or doubts whatsoever.

Countries that are industrially advanced and developed seem to be less conscious of their morality than those that are not fully developed or are still in various stages of development. Good values must be inculcated in children at as early a stage as possible in their childhood. It is a complex but universally recognised and accepted code of conduct that goes deeper than the surface of accepted norms for social behaviour and includes norms for appropriate behaviour at the social, religious, cultural, philosophical and psychological levels as well. A person’s action is termed as moral only if it conforms to the traditions laid down by his or her society.

The most recent example is the stem cell research. One of the latest controls in the application of this research is an agreement between different countries to follow an agreed set of rules. Scientists from around the world have come up with a set of global guidelines to make sure that stem cell research is done ethically. Researchers, ethicists and lawyers from 14 countries came together for a three-day conference in Cambridge to produce rules that they all agreed to follow.
Using stem cells from embryos is a highly sensitive area. This makes research difficult but getting different countries to work together has been made harder because they all have different rules.
The new rules accept that countries have differences in the way they do things and it accepts that many people don’t agree with getting stem cells from embryos. It will be a guide for researchers and will hopefully make them work better.
The rules aim to prevent a repeat of the case of a South Korean scientist who was found to have made up his research results. Dr Woo-Suk Hwang apologised and resigned from Seoul National University in December 2005.