The Ethics of Subverting Science

1. The Ethics of Subverting Science • Curtis Forbes • PhD Candidate • Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology (IHPST) • University of Toronto

2. The Ethics of Subverting Science Governing Question When, if ever, is it morally justifiable to violate the norms of scientific method, i.e. to commit scientific misconduct?

3. The Ethics of Subverting Science Governing Question When, if ever, is it morally justifiable to violate the norms of scientific method, i.e. to commit scientific misconduct? Governing Goal To develop a theory of justified subversion of science

4. The Ethics of Subverting Science The Plan 1) Theories of Practical Ethics - Individual Ethics vs. Policy Ethics - Responsibility vs. Accountability 2) Subversive scientific misconduct - Its prima facie wrongness - Organizational context - Violations of ethical theory 3) Justification - Forms of justification - Examples of (intuitively) justified subversion of science 4) Two theories of justified subversion of science 5) Conclusion

5. Individual Ethics vs. Policy Ethics Applied ethics can be divided roughly into two modes:

6. Individual Ethics vs. Policy Ethics Applied ethics can be divided roughly into two modes: • Policy-level ethics: e.g. “should theft be illegal?”

7. Individual Ethics vs. Policy Ethics Applied ethics can be divided roughly into two modes: • Policy-level ethics: e.g. “should theft be illegal?” • Individual-level ethics: e.g. “should one steal a loaf of bread to feed a starving family?”

8. Individual Ethics vs. Policy Ethics Applied ethics can be divided roughly into two modes: • Policy-level ethics: e.g. “should theft be illegal?” • Individual-level ethics: e.g. “should one steal a loaf of bread to feed a starving family?” • These two modes of ethical discourse can sometimes produce somewhat conflicting answers: e.g. theft should be illegal, but it is OK to steal bread sometimes

9. Individual Ethics vs. Policy Ethics • Questions about the ethics of subverting science operate (primarily) at the level of individual ethics.

10. Individual Responsibility vs. Social Responsibility Individual Responsibility: a voluntary act where one holds oneself accountable for the rightness or wrongness of one’s actions

11. Individual Responsibility vs. Social Responsibility Individual Responsibility: a voluntary act where one holds oneself accountable for the rightness or wrongness of one’s actions Social Responsibility: a social activity where the collective holds individuals accountable for the rightness or wrongness of one’s actions

12. Individual Responsibility vs. Social Responsibility • Questions about the ethics of subverting science are questions of individualresponsibility.

13. Examples of Scientific Misconduct

14. Examples of Scientific Misconduct • Falsifying or “correcting” data and experiments

15. Examples of Scientific Misconduct • Falsifying or “correcting” data and experiments • Destroying or damaging equipment

16. Examples of Scientific Misconduct • Falsifying or “correcting” data and experiments • Destroying or damaging equipment • Lying to colleagues or the public

17. Examples of Scientific Misconduct • Falsifying or “correcting” data and experiments • Destroying or damaging equipment • Lying to colleagues or the public • Burying or suppressing results one finds “distasteful”

18. Examples of Scientific Misconduct • Falsifying or “correcting” data and experiments • Destroying or damaging equipment • Lying to colleagues or the public • Burying or suppressing results one finds “distasteful” • Not pursuing research to its natural conclusions

19. “Generally, we do not need to justify an act unless we have reason to think it wrong (whether morally wrong or wrong in some other way). So, for example, I do not need to justify eating fruit for lunch today, though I would if I were allergic to fruit or had been keeping a fast ... The point of justification is to show to be right an act the rightness of which has been put in (reasonable) doubt. Insofar as we believe the act wrong, we can only condemn or excuse it.” - Davis, 1996, p.4

20. The Prima Facie Wrongness of Subverting Science Question: Why is it prima facie wrong to subvert science, even in order to mitigate the expected negative outputs of inquiry?

21. The Prima Facie Wrongness of Subverting Science Question: Why is it prima facie wrong to subvert science, even in order to mitigate the expected negative outputs of inquiry? • It can’t be morally problematic as an effort to prevent something bad from happening, per se.

22. The Prima Facie Wrongness of Subverting Science Question: Why is it prima facie wrong to subvert science, even in order to mitigate the expected negative outputs of inquiry? • It can’t be morally problematic as an effort to prevent something bad from happening, per se. • It’s wrongness must derive from the organizational context of scientific inquiry, as members of the scientific community, qua scientists, implicitly agree to uphold socially defined norms of scientific inquiry, norms that are violated through subversive action.

23. The Prima Facie Wrongness of Subverting Science The organizational context of science: • Early Modern Science

24. The Prima Facie Wrongness of Subverting Science The organizational context of science: • Early Modern Science • Modern Science

25. The Prima Facie Wrongness of Subverting Science The organizational context of science: • Early Modern Science • Modern Science • Late Modern “Technoscience”

26. The Prima Facie Wrongness of Subverting Science In terms of abstracted moral theories, subverting science is prima facie wrong because ...

27. The Prima Facie Wrongness of Subverting Science In terms of abstracted moral theories, subverting science is prima facie wrong because ... A1) ... it works against the generally beneficial consequences of scientific inquiry

28. The Prima Facie Wrongness of Subverting Science In terms of abstracted moral theories, subverting science is prima facie wrong because ... A1) ... it works against the generally beneficial consequences of scientific inquiry A2) ... it involves deception and the subversion of other people’s autonomy

29. The Prima Facie Wrongness of Subverting Science In terms of abstracted moral theories, subverting science is prima facie wrong because ... A1) ... it works against the generally beneficial consequences of scientific inquiry A2) ... it involves deception and the subversion of other people’s autonomy A3) ... scientific virtues are general virtues

30. Forms of Justification So why think that the subversion of science through scientific misconduct might sometimes be morally justifiable?

31. Forms of Justification So why think that the subversion of science through scientific misconduct might sometimes be morally justifiable? “Doctors cannot remain doctors and be involved in developing weapons and weapons systems; that is an abuse of their knowledge and privileged place in society” - Nathanson, 2008

32. Forms of Justification So why think that the subversion of science through scientific misconduct might sometimes be morally justifiable? “Doctors cannot remain doctors and be involved in developing weapons and weapons systems; that is an abuse of their knowledge and privileged place in society” - Nathanson, 2008 Might research scientists (e.g. physicists and biologists) face a similar standard?

33. Forms of Justification Question: Given its prima facie wrongness, how might the subversion of science be justified?

34. Forms of Justification Question: Given its prima facie wrongness, how might the subversion of science be justified? - Morally permitted

35. Forms of Justification Question: Given its prima facie wrongness, how might the subversion of science be justified? - Morally permitted - Morally praiseworthy

36. Forms of Justification Question: Given its prima facie wrongness, how might the subversion of science be justified? - Morally permitted - Morally praiseworthy - Morally required

37. Examples of (Intuitively) Justified Subversion of Science

38. Examples of (Intuitively) Justified Subversion of Science Albert Einstein: “If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker” (1955, on the role his theoretical work played in making the Atomic Bomb technologically possible)

39. Examples of (Intuitively) Justified Subversion of Science Albert Einstein: “If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker” (1955, on the role his theoretical work played in making the Atomic Bomb technologically possible) Things to note: - Lorentz and others would likely have created a similar theoretical framework to General Relativity if Einstein had not.

40. Examples of (Intuitively) Justified Subversion of Science Albert Einstein: “If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker” (1955, on the role his theoretical work played in making the Atomic Bomb technologically possible) Things to note: - Lorentz and others would likely have created a similar theoretical framework to General Relativity if Einstein had not. - The bomb surely could have been created even if Einstein had become a watchmaker, and Einstein surely knew this.

41. Examples of (Intuitively) Justified Subversion of Science Albert Einstein: “If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker” (1955, on the role his theoretical work played in making the Atomic Bomb technologically possible) Things to note: - Lorentz and others would likely have created a similar theoretical framework to General Relativity if Einstein had not. - The bomb surely could have been created even if Einstein had become a watchmaker, and Einstein surely knew this. - Einstein cannot have thought that his non-participation in physics would have prevented the bomb from ever being developed.

42. Examples of (Intuitively) Justified Subversion of Science Werner Heisenberg: “Dr. Hahn, Dr. von Laue and I falsified the mathematics in order to avoid the development of the atomic bomb by German scientists” (1970)

43. Examples of (Intuitively) Justified Subversion of Science Werner Heisenberg: “Dr. Hahn, Dr. von Laue and I falsified the mathematics in order to avoid the development of the atomic bomb by German scientists” (1970) Things to note: - This account emerged only years after the war, and has been vigorously contested as itself a post-facto fabrication of history.

44. Examples of (Intuitively) Justified Subversion of Science Werner Heisenberg: “Dr. Hahn, Dr. von Laue and I falsified the mathematics in order to avoid the development of the atomic bomb by German scientists” (1970) Things to note: - This account emerged only years after the war, and has been vigorously contested as itself a post-facto fabrication of history. - This statement, the strongest one he ever made claiming subversive action, was made shortly after Hahn’s death, and a decade after von Laue’s death.

45. Examples of (Intuitively) Justified Subversion of Science Werner Heisenberg: “Dr. Hahn, Dr. von Laue and I falsified the mathematics in order to avoid the development of the atomic bomb by German scientists” (1970) Things to note: - This account emerged only years after the war, and has been vigorously contested as itself a post-facto fabrication of history. - This statement, the strongest one he evet made claiming subversive action, was made shortly after Hahn’s death, and a decade after von Laue’s death. - It is nevertheless consistent with many historical facts (e.g. Heisenberg’s meeting with Bohr in 1941).

46. Two Theories of Justified Subversion of Science

47. Two Theories of Justified Subversion of Science Theorizing the Einstein case - Complicity or Divestment Theory:

48. Two Theories of Justified Subversion of Science Theorizing the Einstein case - Complicity or Divestment Theory: 1) The would-be subverter is a voluntary member of a research program

49. Two Theories of Justified Subversion of Science Theorizing the Einstein case - Complicity or Divestment Theory: 1) The would-be subverter is a voluntary member of a research program 2) The would-be subverter believes, with warrant, that this research program will do serious harm (e.g. lead to morally objectionable technology)

50. Two Theories of Justified Subversion of Science Theorizing the Einstein case - Complicity or Divestment Theory: 1) The would-be subverter is a voluntary member of a research program 2) The would-be subverter believes, with warrant, that this research program will do serious harm (e.g. lead to morally objectionable technology) 3) The would-be subverter believes, with warrant, that their active participation in this research program will play a key role in its success