Do you think there may be aspects of the 'scientific' approach that could be seen as not entirely 'ethical'?

Answer 1

Since it is the search for truth, absolutely not.

Answer 2

Science has really just one ethical imperative: to tell the truth.

"Truth" is not a belief that comforts you. "Truth" is not a logical argument that cannot be refuted. Truth is simply a correct description of the facts. The facts as they actually are, not as you might wish them to be, as you might imagine them to be, or as you have been told they are even by the most trusted and authoritative of advisers.

A. J. Ayer, in his "Language, Truth and Logic," suggests the use of the word "validity" rather than "truth" to describe the correctness of a logical conclusion. Thus, " 2 + 2 = 4 " is valid, rather than "true". Its validity rests on the definition of its terms and correctly applied logic, not on a description of nature.

But a "true" statement describes a reality of nature, and may be shown false by contradicting it by evidence. And since you never stop getting new evidence, truth is necessarily tentative, not final, eternal, or absolute. A true statement is a statistical statement.

So ethics in science means proceeding to acquire evidence, and continuously testing all existing theories and claims against it. And when a conflict is found, it is the prior beliefs and theories that must give way. Ethics in science means that the evidence is the final test.

Thus, if a scientist is caught fudging the evidence to keep a theory alive, he is instantly repudiated by the scientific community. He has violated the ethics of science. and yes, this has happened at times.

Readiness to give up all prior claims if the evidence calls for this, is a test of what is science. This test exposes the fallacy of creationists who claim that they are doing science. The question to ask them is - If evidence is found that contradicts the Book of Genesis, are you willing to give up your faith in Genesis? Invariably, they will dodge this question by saying something like - Oh, that will never happen. But until they are willing to say "Yes" they are not ethically doing actual science.

Answer 3

Should science be concerned about ethics? For example, whether someone who has invented the use of nuclear energy, should have also been concerned about the fact that it could be used as a destructive force which could destroy humanity? However, this could be more a question of a certain degree of morality one should apply in publishing such discoveries, or, the degree of availabilty of such scientific discoveries, and, most of all that who should have control over its scope of use?
Ethics in science is more about how scientists should work together or in regard to rules of conduct, or, how to proceed with research and development under different circumstances, and in relation to the extent of lab work, and in relationship with the environment others.
In fact, morals and ethics should work together to make such findings for the good of all mankind.

Answer 4

Like what? I think one must examine particularities. For instance, Auschwitz, and the present Japanese "research" whaling are not science. There's a lot of unethical non-science about - just as there's a lot of unethical activity under the cloak of religion, politics, commerce and the rest. Apart from such activities which can be seen as unethical by majority contemporary standards, there are those condemned by minorities. Minority dissent may not always be new insight, but new insight is always initially minority dissent. So whaling is countenanced; as are "indispensible" economic processes bringing climate change threatening all life on earth. I reckon that's the ultimate in unethical! I also am disturbed at the proposition animals should suffer (even containment) in search of medical treatments for humans, and other activities in science we tolerate, or even promote, in hope of personal benefit. Like the struggle against slavery and war, we can only pursue issues as we become aware of their implications - but I fear that in our present societies profit and power are the drivers, and ethics are usually invoked only as a means to mutual protection. The species ploughs on, as do all its activities, and we must do whatever we can, in our own time, to nudge the behometh onto roads kinder to all.

Answer 5

Absolutely,

Hopefully no one needs to be reminded of Auschwitz, doctors were studying humans as species, making them sick to study diseases, finding out how to utilize human corpses (making soap out of human fat for example) , this was... scientific research and was far from ethical.

You can't call experimenting on alive creatures completely humane neither, like monkeys, dogs, rats, mice.

We are animals too...