The Ethics of Subverting Science Curtis Forbes Ph

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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? ” •

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 •

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

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

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

Individual Responsibility vs. Social Responsibility • Questions about the ethics of subverting science are questions of individual responsibility.

Examples of Scientific Misconduct

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

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

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

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”

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

“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

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

The Prima Facie Wrongness of Subverting Science In terms of abstracted moral theories, subverting science is prima facie wrong because. . . A 1). . . it works against the generally beneficial consequences of scientific inquiry

The Prima Facie Wrongness of Subverting Science In terms of abstracted moral theories, subverting science is prima facie wrong because. . . A 1). . . it works against the generally beneficial consequences of scientific inquiry A 2). . . it involves deception and the subversion of other people’s autonomy

The Prima Facie Wrongness of Subverting Science In terms of abstracted moral theories, subverting science is prima facie wrong because. . . A 1). . . it works against the generally beneficial consequences of scientific inquiry A 2). . . it involves deception and the subversion of other people’s autonomy A 3). . . scientific virtues are general virtues

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

Examples of (Intuitively) Justified Subversion of Science

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)

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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).

Two Theories of Justified Subversion of Science

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

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

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)

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

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 1+2+3 = morally permitted or praiseworthy subversion

Two Theories of Justified Subversion of Science Theorizing the “Heisenberg” case - Harm Prevention Theory:

Two Theories of Justified Subversion of Science Theorizing the “Heisenberg” case - Harm Prevention Theory: 1) The would-be subverter is a voluntary member of a research program

Two Theories of Justified Subversion of Science Theorizing the “Heisenberg” case - Harm Prevention 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, if completed, will do serious harm (e. g. lead to morally objectionable technology)

Two Theories of Justified Subversion of Science Theorizing the “Heisenberg” case - Harm Prevention 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, if completed, will do serious harm (e. g. lead to morally objectionable technology) 3) The would-be subverter has discussed the imminent harm with other research participants, but the project continues

Two Theories of Justified Subversion of Science Theorizing the “Heisenberg” case - Harm Prevention 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, if completed, will do serious harm (e. g. lead to morally objectionable technology) 3) The would-be subverter has discussed the imminent harm with other research participants, but the project continues 4) Non-subversive action (e. g. going to the press) would not prove effective in forestalling or stopping the research

Two Theories of Justified Subversion of Science Theorizing the “Heisenberg” case - Harm Prevention 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, if completed, will do serious harm (e. g. lead to morally objectionable technology) 3) The would-be subverter has discussed the imminent harm with other research participants, but the project continues 4) Non-subversive action (e. g. going to the press) would not prove effective in forestalling or stopping the research 5) The would-be subverter believes, with warrant, that their act of subversion will forestall or stop the research, thereby preventing the harm its completion would bring about

Two Theories of Justified Subversion of Science Theorizing the “Heisenberg” case - Harm Prevention Theory: 1+2+3+4 = morally permitted or praiseworthy subversion 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, if completed, will do serious harm (e. g. lead to morally objectionable technology) 3) The would-be subverter has discussed the potential for serious harm with other research participants, but the project continues 4) Non-subversive action (e. g. going to the press) would not prove effective in forestalling or stopping the research 5) The would-be subverter believes, with warrant, that their act of subversion will forestall or stop the research, thereby preventing the harm its completion would bring about

Two Theories of Justified Subversion of Science Theorizing the “Heisenberg” case - Harm Prevention Theory: 1+2+3+4+5 = morally required subversion 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, if completed, will do serious harm (e. g. lead to morally objectionable technology) 3) The would-be subverter has discussed the potential for serious harm with other research participants, but the project continues 4) Non-subversive action (e. g. going to the press) would not prove effective in forestalling or stopping the research 5) The would-be subverter believes, with warrant, that their act of subversion will forestall or stop the research, thereby preventing the harm its completion would bring about

Conclusion Einstein ---> Complicity or Divestment Theory, motivated by a desire to not be involved in morally objectionable activity “Heisenberg” ---> Harm Prevention Theory, motivated by an attempt to mitigate negative effects of research

The Ethics of Subverting Science Thank you very much! contact: curtis. forbes@utoronto. ca