Responsibility of a scientist to society and the scientific community. Open Library - an open library of educational information. Robert Merton, in his works on the sociology of science, created four moral principles

To view the presentation with pictures, design and slides, download its file and open it in PowerPoint on your computer.
Text content of presentation slides: Ethics of science. Social responsibility of a scientist. Professional ethics (in pedagogy). Prepared by 1st year graduate student of the Department of General Psychology, Personality Psychology and History of Psychology E.V. Shirochenko. Ethics - from ancient Greek from Greek. ethos – disposition, custom, way of thinking. The term “ethics” was introduced by Aristotle more than 2000 years ago as a designation for a special field of study of philosophy. In his teaching, ethics is the science of morality, of the development in a person of such qualities as honesty, nobility, and courage. The Latin analogue of the word “ethics” is the word “morality” (from the Latin mores - generally accepted traditions, unspoken rules) - the ideas accepted in society about good and bad, good and evil, as well as the norms of behavior arising from these rules. Science is closely related to the development of morality, depends on the moral values of the era, in turn, morality is often regulated and also determined by science. Scientific knowledge, finding out what is possible and what is not possible in reality, outlines the boundaries and guidelines of knowledge, the boundaries of what is permitted and what is not permitted, thereby realizing the scope of a person’s real capabilities, and improving the criteria for moral choice. Thus, science is engaged not only in activities aimed at developing objective knowledge about the world, but also in developing certain ethical standards. Over time, the scientific society has developed its own system of ethical, moral norms, prohibitions regulating scientific activity - that is, the ethical code or imperatives of the scientist. (Imperative - a general moral injunction) The ethical code of a scientist reflects universal moral requirements and prohibitions. Real scientific creativity is a moral activity... The first imperative of a scientist is the declaration of the scientist’s highest duty to serve the Truth. Aristotle - “Plato is my friend, but the truth is dearer.” In the pursuit of truth, a scientist should not take into account his own likes and dislikes, nor any whatever other external circumstances. The second imperative of the scientist is to proclaim the usefulness of his activities for society. Today this sounds especially relevant, because scientific results are quickly implemented into practice and give a tangible effect, but it must be remembered that the use of scientific achievements can bring not only good, but also evil, which gives rise to the extremely complex problem of scientists’ responsibility for their discoveries. The scientist is responsible for the possible danger to an individual, society, the economy or harm to nature that the use of untested new scientific knowledge may cause. Professional ethics of a teacher. Every day, a pedagogical worker has to find a way out of atypical professional situations, resolve conflicts, overcome contradictions in the complex system of relationships “teacher - student”, “teacher - teacher”, “teacher - student’s parents”, “teacher - head of an educational institution. Analysis of modern philosophical and pedagogical literature allows us to generalize and identify the main three groups of professional and ethical requirements for a teacher: requirements for a citizen, 2) requirements for a professional, 3) requirements for a teacher’s personality. Humanization and democratization, as priority directions for the development of education in Russian society, put forward high demands on the professional level of the teacher, his human conscience and responsibility. The competence of a teacher becomes a necessary condition for social transformation, when it is through education that it is necessary to form socially important qualities and experience in the younger generation. The substantive basis of the activity of a competent teacher is his value, which influences the formation of the entire system of relationships, relationships characteristic of the teaching profession. After all, universal human values: Truth, Goodness, Beauty - remain the moral imperatives of a teacher’s activity. The activity of a teacher differs from the activity of other categories of specialists in that the profession requires him to develop and improve, in addition to professional qualities, personal ones. The profession places special demands on teachers, as well as on doctors. No professional qualities can compensate for human indifference, bad manners, rudeness, student aggression, and irresponsibility. Ethics is an integral part of pedagogical impact. After all, the teacher is constantly in a state of moral choice. All relationships that develop in the conditions of pedagogical activity are derived from the level of formation of the teacher’s professional ethics. In this regard, V. O. Sukhomlinsky noted that the teacher, carrying out the process of teaching and educating young people, is called upon to take care of the integrity of his moral “I”. At the same time, professional ethics contains a set of moral norms that determine the employee’s attitude towards his professional duty, and through it - towards the people with whom he comes into contact in the process of activity. So, the professional activity of a teacher and its result should be assessed by society not only in terms of the knowledge of the students taught by this teacher, but also from the position of moral investments, examples of moral behavior in changing situations of educational life. In this regard, the question arises of a clear definition of the ethical dimensions of the teaching profession - they mean a set of ethical requirements for the latter, moral regulators of the teacher’s activities. He is always the bearer of social goals, to the achievement of which, accordingly, he subordinates the means of pedagogical influence. It is the choice of means to achieve a goal that may inherently contradict ethical dimensions. Moral regulation of pedagogical activity is carried out thanks to the specific differentiation of moral norms into norms-prohibitions, norms-frameworks, norms-examples. All norms of pedagogical ethics, in their essence, are not a guiding tool for the teacher’s activities; their implementation requires from him mental energy, creative forces, and pedagogical tact, which allow him to apply one or another norm in a specific situation. Most scientists, teachers, and psychologists for the teaching profession highlight such a moral norm as love for a child. It is present in the system of pedagogical morality of every historical era. Thus, in the context of the implementation of a new paradigm of education, the essence of which is determined by the process of humanization, through the professional ethics of a teacher as a form of his moral attitude towards pedagogical activity and its participants, the spiritual and cultural values of society are transformed, and the harmonious development of man as an individual occurs. Regulation of a teacher’s professional behavior on the basis of ethics helps him effectively resolve contradictions in the educational process, overcome possible conflicts, as well as search for new ways of his own self-improvement and self-realization. “The way childhood passed, who held the child’s hand during childhood, what entered his mind and heart from the world around him - this decisively determines what kind of person today’s child will become.” V. A. Sukhomlinsky THANK YOU THANK YOU

To use presentation previews, create a Google account and log in to it: https://accounts.google.com

Slide captions:

Should scientists be held responsible for the consequences of their discoveries? Developed by: Zhilyakova L.V. Social studies teacher of the State Postgraduate Educational Institution of the Amur Region, AMFCPC G. Belogorsk, 2016

Point of view 1. The job of scientists is to solve the problems that society and government set for them; the rest should not concern them. 2. Scientists should not be puppets in the hands of society and government; they should be responsible for the consequences of their discoveries.

What do these scientists have in common? Robert Oppenheimer A.D. Sakharov Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein The great physicist Albert Einstein tried to explain that the atomic bombing of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought benefits to humanity. In one of his letters, the scientist wrote about this: “The only consolation from the creation of nuclear bombs, it seems to me, is that this time the intimidation effect will achieve its goal and accelerate the development of international security.” Albert Einstein, a Jew by birth, fled Germany as an enemy of the Nazi regime. After Hitler came to power, he was forced to hastily leave Germany, where he was declared an enemy of the Reich, and his books were publicly burned in public squares. In Great Britain, the physicist felt completely safe. After living in England for several months, he left for the USA.

Robert Oppenheimer "The Father of the Atomic Bomb", he was at the same time an ardent opponent of American nuclear policy. Bearing the title of one of the most outstanding physicists of his time, he enjoyed studying the mysticism of ancient Indian books. A communist, a traveler, and a staunch American patriot, a very spiritual man, he was nevertheless willing to betray his friends in order to protect himself from the attacks of anti-communists. The scientist who developed the plan to cause the greatest damage to Hiroshima and Nagasaki cursed himself for “innocent blood on his hands.” Until the end of his life, satisfaction from scientific success was always mixed with a sense of responsibility for the consequences.

A.D. Sakharov Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov (May 21, 1921 - December 14, 1989) - Soviet physicist, academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences and political figure, dissident and human rights activist. Andrei Sakharov, who later became a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, took part in the development of the Tsar Bomba, and after the test he began to oppose nuclear weapons. He was one of the initiators of the Soviet-British-American Treaty Banning Tests of Nuclear Weapons in the Atmosphere, Outer Space and Underwater of 1963, which became the first international agreement on the limitation of nuclear weapons.

Hiroshima

Shadows of Hiroshima

Point of view 3. Scientists must be held accountable for the consequences of their discoveries to the extent that they contribute to those consequences.

On the topic: methodological developments, presentations and notes

Extracurricular event "Own game". Test your science knowledge!

Methodological development of an extracurricular event in natural science "Test your knowledge of natural science!" in the form of the popular TV game "Own Game". All questions are shown on slides. TSO:...

Conversation with students who need special pedagogical attention. Topic: "Personal responsibility for one's actions. Moral and legal responsibility for violating a moral norm"

Conversation with students who need special pedagogical attention. Topic: “Personal responsibility for one’s actions. Moral and legal responsibility for violating a moral norm.” Dan...

The purpose of the portfolio is to analyze, summarize and systematize the results of your work, objectively assess your capabilities and plan actions to overcome difficulties and achieve better results.

Information cardResults of teaching activitiesScientific and methodological activitiesMethodological piggy bankPhoto gallery...

Methodological development of an open educational lesson in the discipline OGSE.03 “Foreign language” Topic: “Science and technology. Great scientists of Russia and Great Britain. Passive voice (grammatical tenses)"

The methodological development of this open lesson can be used in English classes for both 2nd and 3rd years....

Introduction

Responsibility of scientists to society for the development of weapons of mass destruction
Responsibility of scientists for developments in the field of genetic engineering and cloning

Conclusion

Bibliography

INTRODUCTION

Scientific activity requires certain qualities from a person. This is not only boundless hard work, inquisitiveness and obsession, but also high civil courage. A true scientist wages an uncompromising fight against ignorance, defends the sprouts of the new, progressive against attempts to preserve outdated views and ideas. The history of science carefully preserves the names of scientists who, without sparing their lives, fought against the backward worldview that hampered the progress of civilization. Giordano Bruno, a great thinker and materialist who boldly declared the infinity of the Universe, was burned at the stake of the Inquisition.

In an exploitative society, science and scientists had and still have one more enemy - the desire of those in power to use the work of scientists for the purpose of their enrichment and for the purposes of war.

The purpose of the work is to study the responsibility of scientists for the fate of the world.

During the work, the following tasks were solved:

Determine the responsibility of scientists to society for the development of weapons of mass destruction;

To study the degree of responsibility of scientists for developments in the field of genetic engineering and cloning;

1. Responsibility of scientists to society for the development of weapons of mass destruction

Scientists have always spoken out for preventing wars and bloodshed, as well as for stopping the use of nuclear technology. Thus, in December 1930, Albert Einstein expressed the thought: “If it were possible to ensure that only two percent of the world's population declared in peacetime that they would refuse to fight, the question of international conflicts would be resolved, for it would be impossible to imprison two percent of the world's population, there would not be enough room for them in the prisons of the entire earth." Nevertheless, Einstein's call left a noticeable mark: it was an inevitable and necessary stage in the difficult process of scientists realizing their civic duty to humanity.

A. Einstein and a number of other prominent scientists, including Paul Langevin, Bertrand Russell, were part of the initiative committee for the preparation of the World Anti-War Congress, held in Amsterdam in August 1932. A significant step towards uniting scientists against the war was made by the anti-war congress in Brussels in 1936. Within the framework of this congress, representatives of the scientific community from thirteen countries discussed the issue of the responsibility of scientists in the face of military danger.

In a resolution adopted by the scientific committee of the congress, they condemned the war as undermining the international character of science and pledged to direct their efforts to prevent war. Congress participants called on scientists to explain the harmful consequences of using scientific achievements for war purposes, to conduct anti-war propaganda, and to expose pseudoscientific theories with the help of which certain forces are trying to justify war.

This decision, made on the eve of the Second World War, did not have any serious practical consequences, primarily because the governments of the imperialist West were not thinking about how to stop Hitler’s aggression, but about how to direct it to the East. But it forced many Western scientists to think about the socio-economic causes of war, about the role that scientists can play in educating the general public about the causes and consequences of war, in helping to organize resistance to the forces interested in starting a war.

These thoughts pushed anti-fascist scientists to action, which from today’s perspective can be assessed as a manifestation of the desire to prevent atomic weapons from falling into the hands of Hitler and his allies.

It is worth remembering under what conditions it was created. The basic laws associated with the processes of fission of uranium nuclei were discovered before the start of the Second World War, and the fission itself was carried out already at the beginning of the war. Outstanding scientists from many countries around the world participated in these works.

Hitler's Germany could also create nuclear weapons and use them to enslave peoples - many scientists thought so, especially those who learned in practice what fascism is. They did everything to prevent Hitler from using this powerful force. The brave son of the French people, Frederic Joliot-Curie, whose research on the fission of the uranium nucleus into two fragments under the influence of a neutron revealed the last link in the chain reaction, took all measures to prevent the Nazis from seizing the uranium reserves and heavy water needed in France. creation of a nuclear reactor.

Information that Nazi Germany was carrying out work for the military use of atomic energy determined the direction of further research by scientists in Western countries. Concern for the fate of nations and the possibility of Germany acquiring nuclear weapons prompted progressive scientists in the United States, many of whom were refugees from Europe, to appeal to the American government with a proposal to immediately create an atomic bomb.

This decision was made, and a special organization called the Manhattan Project was created to develop and manufacture the atomic bomb. The leadership of this organization was entrusted to General L. Groves, a representative of the Pentagon.

On April 23, 1957, the famous scientist, Nobel Prize laureate, physician and philosopher A. Schweitzer drew public attention in an address broadcast by Norwegian Radio to the genetic and other consequences of ongoing nuclear weapons testing. Joliot-Curie supported this appeal, emphasizing the urgent need to stop test explosions of nuclear weapons. A warning signed by more than 2,000 American scientists and published by L. Pauling said: “As scientists, we are aware of the dangers that lie ahead and have a special responsibility to make people aware of these dangers. We believe it is necessary to take immediate action to achieve an international agreement to completely stop nuclear weapons testing."

This statement received a positive response from scientists in many countries. Soviet scientists also categorically stated that they supported the prohibition of nuclear weapons and demanded the conclusion of an agreement between countries on the immediate cessation of testing of atomic and hydrogen bombs, believing that any nuclear war, wherever it occurred, would necessarily turn into a general war with dire consequences for humanity.

Many other examples could be given that testify to the uncompromising struggle of progressive scientists to ban nuclear tests. Noble humanity pays tribute to those who selflessly advocate for stopping the testing and production of nuclear weapons and for banning their use.

A modern scientist cannot be imagined without a high sense of citizenship, without heightened responsibility for the results of his activities, without serious concern for the fate of the world and humanity. A scientist of any specialty, under any circumstances, must consider concern for the welfare of humanity as his highest moral duty.

2. Responsibility of scientists for developments in the field of genetic engineering and cloning

Genetic engineering emerged in the 1970s. as a branch of molecular biology associated with the targeted creation of new combinations of genetic material capable of multiplying (in a cell) and synthesizing final products. A decisive role in the creation of new combinations of genetic material is played by special enzymes (restriction enzymes, DNA ligases), which make it possible to cut the DNA molecule into fragments in strictly defined places, and then “stitch” the DNA fragments into a single whole. Only after the isolation of such enzymes did it become practically possible to create artificial hybrid genetic structures—recombinant DNA. A recombinant DNA molecule contains an artificial hybrid gene (or set of genes) and a “vector-fragment” of DNA, which ensures the reproduction of recombined DNA and the synthesis of its final products - proteins. All this already happens in the host cell (bacterial cell), where the recombined DNA is introduced.

Using genetic engineering methods, transgenic microorganisms were first obtained that carried bacterial genes and genes of an oncogenic monkey virus, and then microorganisms that carried the genes of Drosophila flies, rabbits, humans, etc. Subsequently, it was possible to carry out microbial (and inexpensive) synthesis of many biologically active substances present in the tissues of animals and plants in very low concentrations: insulin, human interferon, human growth hormone, hepatitis vaccine, as well as enzymes, hormonal drugs, cell hybrids that synthesize antibodies desired specificity, etc.

Genetic engineering has opened up prospects for the construction of new biological organisms - transgenic plants and animals with pre-planned properties. The study of the human genome is also of great importance.

The responsibility of scientists during the development of genetic engineering can be characterized by the fact that they must maintain the confidentiality of genetic information about specific people. For example, some countries have laws restricting the dissemination of such information.

Although significant work has been done in the laboratory to engineer transgenic microbes with a wide variety of properties, scientists have a public responsibility to ensure that transgenic microbes are not used in the open. This is due to the uncertainty of the consequences that such a fundamentally uncontrollable process can lead to. In addition, the world of microorganisms itself has been studied extremely poorly: science knows, at best, about 10% of microorganisms, and practically nothing is known about the rest; The patterns of interaction between microbes, as well as between microbes and other biological organisms, have not been sufficiently studied. These and other circumstances determine the increased sense of responsibility of microbiologists, expressed not only towards transgenic microorganisms, but also towards transgenic biological organisms in general.

The importance of awareness of the responsibility of scientists involved in cloning cannot be underestimated either.

Recently, many predictions, wishes, guesses and fantasies about the cloning of living organisms have been spreading in the media. The discussion of the possibility of human cloning gives particular urgency to these discussions. The technological, ethical, philosophical, legal, religious, and psychological aspects of this problem are of interest; consequences that may arise when implementing this method of human reproduction.

Of course, scientists defend themselves by the fact that in the 20th century. Many successful experiments were carried out on cloning animals (amphibians, some species of mammals), but all of them were performed using the transfer of nuclei of embryonic (undifferentiated or partially differentiated) cells. It was believed that it was impossible to obtain a clone using the nucleus of a somatic (fully differentiated) cell of an adult organism. However, in 1997, British scientists announced a successful sensational experiment: the production of living offspring (Dolly the sheep) after the transfer of a nucleus taken from the somatic cell of an adult animal (the donor cell is more than 8 years old).

But special attention should be paid to the responsibility for human cloning. Despite the fact that there are no technical capabilities to clone a person yet, in principle, human cloning looks like a completely feasible project. And here many not only scientific and technological problems arise, but also ethical, legal, philosophical, and religious ones.

At the same time, scientists are very cautious about the prospects of cloning and point out the limitations of this method. In particular, they note that, based on the laws of molecular genetics, a number of assumptions can be formulated.

Conclusion

As a result of the study of the responsibility of scientists for the fate of the world, the following conclusions can be drawn.

The importance of science in public life is constantly increasing. From year to year, the number of people involved in scientific work is increasing, and the period of time between scientific research and practical applications is decreasing. Science is becoming a productive force, therefore, the responsibility of scientists to society and humanity is growing.

A scientist creates in a society whose history and current state have a continuous influence on him. And, of course, there is feedback - scientists, along with other thinking people, influence society.

Serving moral ideals follows from scientists’ understanding of their responsibility to society. A scientist has been given a lot. His creative work develops in him strict and unbiased thinking, the ability for precise logical reasoning. Society listens carefully to the words of the scientist; his activities could have serious consequences for humanity. The responsibility of a scientist to society requires civic courage from him. This is not true for everyone. And not everything depends on the scientist.

The history of the atomic bomb is well known. Einstein, Fermi, Szilard, Oppenheimer were guided by the high goal of fighting unparalleled criminals in the history of mankind - German fascism. However, the physicists' discovery fell into the hands of the American military, who burned Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Attempts by scientists to stop this terrible thing were in vain. Physicists—not Teller, of course—experienced severe moral trauma.

In Lomonosov’s time, a scientist could create alone, but now the situation has changed. Modernity has put forward a new type of scientist-organizer and leader. The incredible complexity and increase in the scale of scientific equipment needed to solve pressing problems in physics or astronomy makes it impossible in some cases to work alone or in small teams. Instead of a modest laboratory, there is a grandiose scientific institution, whose activities involve many hundreds of people. They are led by a prominent scientist. He is forced daily and hourly to overcome the enormous difficulties of combining creative mental work with the solution of specific problems of a social, organizational, economic, and financial nature. Talent and focus are not enough here. A leader must also be a strong personality.

This does not mean that individual work or working with a small number of employees is impossible these days. Molecular biology, along with the physics of the microworld, which has become the leading field of modern natural science, was largely created by such individual efforts.

A scientist, regardless of whether he works in a group or is a bright individualist, faces ethical problems continuously.

Scientific work requires absolute truthfulness. Very often the results of the experiment contradict expectations and undermine the original concept. The main ethical principle of scientific work is an honest attitude to these results. This requires courage. It is all the more necessary when an already published work turns out to be erroneous and is refuted. An honest scientist is forced to admit his mistake and accept scientifically reasoned objections.

This is especially true when it comes to bioethics. Most scientists agree that “in many cases, the question of the need for preliminary ethical justification of an undertaken scientific research becomes relevant.” For example, problems arising with the development of genetic engineering must be solved on a broad humanistic basis, which presupposes the priority of human welfare. At the same time, this decision should not close new ways of understanding nature, which also, ultimately, serves the benefit of man. Thus, one of the most important problems of modern philosophy arises, which concerns the freedom of research and the socio-ethical responsibility of the scientist.

As M. Wolkenstein wrote in his work: “Genuine scientific creativity is a moral activity... At the highest level of serving the truth, the scientist turns out to be a champion of the moral ideals of humanity.”

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Volkenshtein M.V. Science of people: // New World No. 11, 1969.
Gertsik Yu.G. Fundamentals of scientist ethics //Knowledge is power, 1990, No. 6. pp. 34-38.
Emelyanov V.S. About science and civilization. - M.: Thought. - 1986. - 239 p.
Emelyanov V.S. Responsibility of scientists. - M.: Thought. - 1988. - 134 p.
Frolov I.T., Yudin B.G. Ethics of science. Problems and discussions: Politizdat, 1986.
Ethical and legal aspects of the Human Genome Project: // International documents and analytical materials. M., 1998.

Performance

Social and moral responsibility of a scientist.

Prepared

Sysuev Vadim Nikolaevich

Krivoy Rog

Humanists are paying increasing attention to what Western scholars sometimes call an “identity crisis,” i.e. a person’s loss of the idea of his place in a modern, constantly changing society, of the self-worth of the individual. We face an undoubted threat, as if for a general consideration of global problems affecting the broad masses of the population, right up to all of humanity as a whole, but forgetting about one thing, but ultimately the most important. What is this “one”? This is one person, this is a personality, an individual. We must constantly remember him.

Modern attention is directed to the external, material environment. They take care of its preservation and strive to avoid pollution. But life urgently requires attention to the “internal environment” of the human personality, to its deeper aspects. In search of the most effective forms of activity, it is natural to focus attention on problems affecting the broad masses of the population, but we must also think about the individual, about the human personality, about the spiritual world of modern man.

The situation of emerging crises, typical of the modern era, the consequences of which affect the fate of large masses of the population and sometimes represent dangers of a truly global nature, impose a special responsibility on science as a force involved in the emergence of such situations, and on the creators of this science, i.e. on scientists.

We often hear accusations against science, and therefore scientists, and this is natural. After all, a significant part of crises arises as a consequence of the use of modern technology in the economy based on it. It has become a truism that the progress of technology, its development and new forms are based on the achievements of spiders. Science has become not just one of the productive forces of national economies and the world economy as a whole, it is, in essence, perhaps the most powerful of these forces, if not directly, then, in any case, indirectly, as a universal source of new achievements that become the basis of development and technical progress.

The causes of the crises that arise in our time, along with the imperfection of various economic and social structures, in a large number of cases lie in the quantitative and qualitative ambiguity of the results of technological progress, which opens up the possibility of both the reasonable use of technological achievements and their use to the detriment of humans (nuclear industry and radiation threat; uncontrollable growth in the use of natural resources; increasing power of the media; flow of new medicinal substances, often with far from studied effects, etc.). Seeing the direct or at least indirect root cause of the emergence of alarming situations in the successes and achievements of science, we have to assume that science bears a certain responsibility for the developing conditions, although it is not, of course, their main cause. And from here it obviously follows that special responsibility falls on the creators of science, on scientists, who with their works pave the way for the emergence of negative consequences.

The problem of a scientist's responsibility to society has long attracted much attention. It is complex and diverse, it consists of a considerable number of factors, and is closely intertwined with the broader problem of ethical aspects of science, which we will not touch on here. A scientist in his activities naturally bears responsibility, so to speak, of a universal human nature. He is responsible for the usefulness of the scientific “product” he produces: he is expected to have impeccable demands on the reliability of the material, correctness in using the work of his colleagues, rigor of analysis and solid validity of the conclusions drawn. These are elementary, self-evident aspects of a scientist’s responsibility, so to speak, his personal ethics. The responsibility of a scientist becomes much broader when the question arises about the forms and results of using his works through technology and economics. It is naive to think that the actions and behavior of an individual scientist will affect the emergence or course of a particular crisis. We are talking here about something else - about the voice of the community of scientists, about their professional position.

An example that has already become quite widely known and concerns the collective action of scientists is the agreed voluntary suspension of research in a new field of science - genetic engineering. Here, an ill-considered technique or carelessness in the “escaping” of dangerous, potentially pathogenic material from laboratories due to accidental negligence could have large, even global consequences, up to the emergence of a new, previously unknown epidemic, against which medicine does not yet have the means to combat. This issue was discussed at a special meeting convened in Azilomar (USA). In a very heated discussion, it was ultimately decided to declare a moratorium, i.e. on the suspension of relevant research pending the development of carefully thought-out precautions to guarantee against possible danger.

Opponents of this event were advocates of “freedom of scientific research,” but common sense prevailed, and at present the corresponding work rules have been adopted in most countries, sometimes they even acquire a legislative character. Thus, the “Azilomar Moratorium” on Iran can be considered a prototype of scientists demonstrating their responsibility in the face of a danger that could reach the proportions of a widespread national disaster, the scale of a crisis.

The problem of a scientist's responsibility arises with great clarity and distinctness when he is faced with a dilemma "for" or "against", as was the case, for example, in medicine at the beginning of the century, with the epoch-making discovery by Ehrlich of his first radical remedy against syphilis - the drug "606" " Medical science and, along with it, practice in those days were governed by one principle, and even now it appears in the “Hippocratic Oath.” This is a principle that has become an indisputable law: “first of all, do no harm.” Ehrlich put forward and courageously defended another principle: “first of all, be useful.” These principles are directly addressed to the responsibility, to the conscience of the scientist. It is clear that they go far beyond the scope of medical science alone and have the broadest general significance. Such problems arise many times, and there is no absolute recipe. Each time, scientists must weigh the pros and cons and take responsibility for how to proceed.

In the case of Ehrlich, the responsibility of the scientist was unusually high, one might say gigantic. On one side of the scale was a terrible disease, which had a colossal spread everywhere. On the other side is a promising, but completely unknown therapeutic agent with the danger of secondary, perhaps severe, side effects. But confidence in one’s own rightness and in the reliability of checks contributed to the fact that the principle of “first of all, bring benefit” triumphed. Despite the risk of some supposedly possible harm, a serious, truly global disease was defeated.

There is no doubt that in the event of global problems and crises, scientists will more than once have to turn to their conscience and call on a sense of responsibility in order to find the right way to overcome emerging threats. And, of course, it is a matter of the public conscience of the world's scientists, of common responsibility - to fight in every possible way the causes that cause harmful, disastrous consequences, to direct scientific research to correct the harm that the spider itself, without weighing and not taking into account the possible consequences, could bring and thereby turn out to be involved in the emergence of certain global problems. And the peculiar form of reaction that has recently been encountered to difficult decisions that arise before the conscience of a scientist should be considered nothing more than capitulation, which is expressed in the promotion of the slogans of “counterscience” and “counterculture” with a call to suspend the forward movement of scientific research.

It can be admitted that scientists are to a certain extent to blame for the ulcers that plague and corrode the body of modern Western society, even if this is expressed in their non-participation, in the desire to evade responsibility, so to speak, in a new form of “non-interference” of fellow members of the world community of scientists. Many of us, the older age stratum, will remember what disastrous fruits were brought by the ill-fated principle of non-intervention in the field of international politics, which led to the fire of the Second World War in the days of Munich. It carries evil seeds within itself when it becomes the norm of behavior for a scientist.

The movement for collective responsibility among scientists is to be welcomed. Currently, such broad forms of social movements as the International Federation of Scientists, their professional associations in individual countries, the emergence of organizations with a clearly expressed special purpose, such as the British Association for the Social Responsibility of Scientists (BSSRS), etc., are attracting increasingly close attention. .d. In the development of this movement, we see an important form of scientists demonstrating their responsibility in periods characterized by particularly broad, global-scale problems affecting various aspects of modern society.

A scientist in his activities naturally bears responsibility, so to speak, of a universal human nature. He is responsible for the completeness of the scientific “product” he produces: he is expected to be impeccably demanding in terms of the reliability of the material, correctness in using the work of his colleagues, rigor of analysis and solid validity of the conclusions drawn. These are elementary, self-evident aspects of a scientist’s responsibility, so to speak, his personal ethics.

The responsibility of a scientist becomes much broader when the question arises about the forms and results of using his works through technology and economics. It is naive to think that the actions and behavior of an individual scientist will affect the emergence or course of this or that crisis. We are talking here about something else - about the voice of the community of scientists, about their professional position.

Recent decades have been marked by the extraordinary development of neurobiology, within which new directions have emerged and are successfully developing, studying the structure and functions of the human central nervous system. The results of these studies, both of genuine scientific significance and those representing hasty, unfounded or clearly falsified “sensations,” conceal the danger of their inhumane use not for the purpose of curing mental disorders, but as a means of “behavior modification.” The rapid development of chemistry and pharmacology over the past decades has enriched medicine with a large number of new active drugs that affect the human psyche and behavior. Advances in neurosurgery have made it possible to perform delicate and complex operations on the brain. All these achievements of scientific and technological progress and the natural desire of scientists to penetrate the secrets of the human brain have raised a number of important moral, ethical and legal problems 1. Chavkin S. Thieves of the mind: Psychosurgery and control of brain activity. - M.: Progress, 1982. - P.15, 18..

One of the features of modern science is its increasing rapprochement with production; the distance from the moment of scientific discovery to its practical implementation is decreasing; the responsibility of the scientist is increasing. There is a need for that scientific risk, without which it is impossible to translate laboratory results and scientific conclusions into production on a large scale.

Thus, the question of the practical application of scientific discoveries involves the problem of risk, that is, the scientist’s awareness of the need for courage, which is one of the specific forms of manifestation of responsibility.

The forms of manifestation of scientific risk are diverse, but the question of it is always closely related to the problem of the scientist’s moral responsibility. When a scientist realizes the possibility or necessity of a certain scientific risk, the contradictory nature of freedom of scientific creativity, on the one hand, and responsibility, on the other, is revealed.

The responsibility of a scientist is the other side of the freedom of his scientific creativity. On the one hand, responsibility is unthinkable without freedom, on the other hand, freedom without responsibility becomes arbitrariness.

When a modern scientist, armed with all the power of modern technology and supported by all the “assets” of modern states, loses clear moral criteria, when he is “in the interests of science”, and not out of morality, and often out of a purely “aesthetic” interest in the “case”, in discovery and creativity, as such, invents sets of poisons, atomic, bacterial, psychopathogenic and other weapons, this is deadly for humanity, not to mention the fact that it is also deadly for science Trubnikov N.K. Deluded mind? Diversity of extra-scientific knowledge. - M.: Politizdat, 1990. - P.279..

Among the areas of scientific knowledge in which the issues of social responsibility of a scientist and the moral and ethical assessment of his activities are especially acutely and intensely discussed, a special place is occupied by genetic engineering, biotechnology, biomedical and human genetic research, all of which are quite closely related to each other.

It was the development of genetic engineering that led to a unique event in the history of science, when in 1975 the world's leading scientists voluntarily entered into a moratorium, temporarily suspending a number of studies that were potentially dangerous not only to humans, but also to other forms of life on our planet. The moratorium was preceded by a sharp breakthrough in molecular genetics research. However, the other side of this breakthrough in the field of genetics was the potential threats hidden in it for humans and humanity. These kinds of fears forced scientists to take such an unprecedented step as establishing a voluntary moratorium. However, discussions around the ethical problems of genetic engineering have not subsided at all. Frolov I.T., Yudin B.G. Ethical aspects of biology. - M.: Knowledge, 1986. - P.410..

The problem of a scientist’s responsibility arises with great clarity and distinctness when he is faced with a dilemma “for” or “against”, as was the case, for example, in medicine at the beginning of the 20th century, with Ehrlich’s epoch-making discovery of his first radical remedy against syphilis - - drug "606".

Medical science and, along with it, practice in those days were governed by the principle “first of all, do no harm,” and even now it appears in the “Hippocratic Oath.” Ehrlich put forward and courageously defended another principle: “first of all, be useful.” These principles are directly addressed to the responsibility, to the conscience of the scientist. It is clear that they go far beyond the scope of medical science alone and have the broadest general significance. Such problems arise many times, and there is no absolute recipe. Each time, scientists must weigh the pros and cons and take responsibility for how to proceed.