Do scientists have an ethical obligation on research outcomes?

I certainly say “yes.” It’s an issue scientists are wrestling with at the Asilomar conference center in California.

Some biologists, such as genetic engineering researchers, have had to do that for a long time.

Physicists? Not so much.

But what if, even short of Luddite apocalypticists, nanotechnology has environmental actions not envisioned in advance? How much obligation do scientists and engineers have to openly discuss these issues with both their peers and the general public? I’d say a lot.

Or, here’s another ethics question? What if technology makes global warming, or peak oil, seem less of a short-term threat? Should it even be marketed? If it is, should that technology have some “black box” warnings similar to many medications?

Here’s part of the problem:

Paul Thompson, a philosopher at Michigan State and former secretary of the International Society for Environmental Ethics, many scientists were trained to limit themselves to questions answerable in the real world, in the belief that “scientists and engineers should not be involved in these kinds of ethical questions.”

What if Heisenberg and other Nazis had come closer to inventing the bomb? Wouldn’t they have offered this as their justification?