Science tells us what’s possible. It doesn’t, by itself, tell us what we should do. Science and technology now move fast — genetic engineering, AI, nuclear power. So the gap between “can we?” and “should we?” is now a governance question, not just a lab question.
MCQ QuestionsEthics, Integrity and Aptitude
Science and Ethics: A Widening Gap
“Can we?” keeps outrunning “should we?”
1945
The atomic bomb
Oppenheimer reflects on the Gita after Trinity: power arrives before the ethics catch up.
1947
Nuremberg Code
After Nazi medical experiments, informed consent becomes a strict rule — modern research ethics begins.
1979
Hans Jonas’s “ethics of responsibility”
Argues huge technological power needs a new ethics, toward future generations and the planet.
2018
CRISPR twin embryos
A Chinese scientist edits heritable genes; global outrage and jail follow — science ahead of the rules.
Ongoing
AI, dual-use research
Institutional Review Boards try to build ethics into the process itself, not add it on after.
Must Know
- Philosopher David Hume’s “is-ought problem” sums this up well. A purely factual account of how the world is can’t, by logic alone, tell us how it ought to be. Science can describe causes and effects. But deciding what to do about them needs a value judgment.
- Scientific ethics — also called research ethics — sets the standards for how science itself is done. This covers consent from human subjects, humane treatment of test animals, honest reporting, and avoiding fake data or copying others’ work.
- The Nuremberg Code (1947) came after Nazi medical experiments came to light. It made willing, informed consent a strict rule for any human experiment. It’s the founding document of modern research ethics.
- India’s own research-ethics rules, the ICMR’s National Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical and Health Research, apply similar consent and review rules to research done in India.
Good to Know
- A recurring idea is dual-use research. The same research can serve a clear public good — a vaccine — or cause real harm — a bioweapon. This raises a real question: should scientists self-police what they publish and share on sensitive topics?
- The precautionary principle is common in environmental and health rules. It says: if an action carries a real risk of serious, lasting harm, don’t wait for full scientific proof before acting to prevent it. This is an ethical stance about acting under doubt — not a scientific fact.
- Genetic engineering shows this gap clearly — especially editing human genes passed to children, made newly possible by CRISPR. Science can now edit these genes. Ethical and legal rules haven’t caught up. In 2018, a Chinese scientist edited the genes of twin embryos. He faced global outrage and jail. People often point to this as science running ahead of ethics and law.
- The same tension shows up in AI, nuclear power, and synthetic biology. In each field, the science moves faster than the rules meant to guide it. “Keeping pace” with technology is an ongoing challenge, not a problem solved once and done.
Test Yourself
Great to Know
- Philosopher Hans Jonas argued, in The Imperative of Responsibility (1979), that today’s huge technological power needs a new “ethics of responsibility” toward future generations and the planet. Old ethics was built for a world where actions had local, short-lived effects — not global, permanent ones.
- Robert Oppenheimer reflected on the atomic bomb after the war. He reportedly quoted the Bhagavad Gita: “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.” People often cite this as a scientist facing the ethical weight of a discovery only after the power already existed.
- One standard response to this gap: ethics review boards, or Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), and bioethics panels. They review research and new technology before it’s approved. This tries to build ethical thought into the science process itself, not add it on after the fact.
Leave a Reply