A midnight rainstorm provided cover for the scientists. The water striking the roof of the abandoned warehouse drowned out the buzz of their machines and allowed them to work undisturbed. Their work was fraught with chance for disaster, but the potential benefits were too many and too great to ignore.
The law told them to stop, but they knew their work was for the best. If they succeeded a whole host of new medicine would be available to treat millions of people. If that required the death of a few unwilling participants, well that was just a price that would have to be paid. They knew the ethical argument was weak; that they were merely using the ends to justify the means, but they tried not to let that concern them.
Besides, they figured if they didn’t do the work, someone else would. So what was the point of holding back their research? If they waited until the law changed, then surely they would be too late; whereas, if they succeeded, they could inspire the change in the laws themselves. A few innocent people; a price they were definitely willing to pay.
The line between a scientist’s obligation to scientific advancement and the observance of societal law and ethics is not always clearly defined. The popular novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, by the famed science fiction novelist Philip K. Dick, is full of ethical dilemmas facing scientists, but one in particular stands out in our modern pursuit of scientific knowledge. Where do we draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable research and knowledge? The line is drawn by society, and it must be respected.
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? is set in the post-apocalyptic future that was so popular in the 1950s. In this dystopian universe, nuclear war has already ravaged the earth, and most of the original animal species have died off. It is this scarcity of life that has allowed for the creation of a new religion: Mercerism. Mercerism embraces the value of all life and holds the ownership and caretaking of pets as the pinnacle of righteous endeavors. However, animals are so expensive and rare that many people cannot afford them, so they pay to have electronic simulacra created that are so realistic only the owners know whether they are fake. Outwardly, everyone loves their pets, but those with electric animals secretly despise them.
The animals are not the only ones at risk from the resultant waste caused by the nuclear war; the humans that remain suffer as well. They risk impotence and infertility and, greatest of all, they risk becoming Special. In their society, nothing is worse than becoming a Special, or a chickenhead (a derogatory term used to describe a mentally incompetent person); unless of course, you happen to be an android. Androids entered the scene as human servants. After the nuclear war humans began to flee, with government encouragement, to start over on Mars. To help them on their way, the refugees were all given an android servant. As with the electric animals, these androids are incredibly realistic, so much so, that many of them do not know they are androids.
They are sometimes given false memories so they think they are human and they live out a normal existence, never suspecting that they are inhuman. The problem arises when they find out they are only facsimiles. Sometimes they murder their owners, and often they flee Mars in an attempt to hide on Earth and live their own life. However, Earth is no safe haven for androids. In the same way they despise their electric sheep; the people of Earth abhor the abomination that is an android. Bounty hunters exist to find the androids and “retire” them.
Androids are illegal on Earth, and this is where the scientific dilemma arises. The company that is the chief manufacturer of androids has its base of operations on Mars. That is where it makes the robots, but they have offices on Earth, and there is some question as too how much of their work is really done on Mars and how much might be accomplished on Earth. At the start of the novel, a new brain has been developed for the androids and this brain is incredibly complex and threatens to make it impossible for the bounty hunters to properly detect and destroy androids on Earth.
The creation of more advanced and ultimately undetectable brains for androids flies in the face of the law. The android servants were already very advanced and able to pass off as humans for the most part. There was no need to make them more than they already were and the only end that could be achieved by increasing their mental faculty would be to increase their chances of escaping detection on Earth. They make the typical capitalist claim that advancement is inevitable, and that if they were not the ones to do it, someone else would. In order to stay in business, they argue, they have to continue to advance their science and their product or else someone will be able to break in to their market and take their profits.
However, they are not only breaking the law, but also going directly against the will of the people on Earth. The people on Earth fear the androids. They fear them, and they hate them. Let’s face it, if an android is on Earth it is because it escaped from Mars and in doing so it probably killed several people. The people of Earth have a legitimate fear: If this machine can kill once, it can kill again. This company is not only allowing for an aberrance of nature, but they are also allowing murderers to stay hidden and undetected. They claim to have no ill-meaning in their work, but if they are not intentionally breaking the law, then they are at the very least skirting around the heart of it.
Dick’s point is that scientists must respect the boundaries that society provides. By ignoring the will of the people the scientists have served to create and spread more fear and paranoia. They are behaving unethically by creating an advancement that is not only unnecessary but unwanted. He would argue that scientific progress has a cost that society has to pay; therefore, they should decide and set the limits and boundaries of research. Today, we find ourselves facing a similar dilemma. We find many restrictions on what research is deemed admirable and allowable and many scientists do not agree with the laws that exist to limit scientific advancement. However, it is not the place of the scientist to determine what research is acceptable. Surely, scientists have a duty to decide whether the work they are doing is ethical or not, but they also have a duty to society. A scientist’s true responsibility is to carry out research within the confines that his government and society present him. He can work to change the laws by educating people on the benefits of his research, but he should not decide for himself which laws are worth being upheld and which ignored.
The biggest example of this is in the area of stem cell research. Our government has decided that it will not support or allow research involving the use of embryonic stem cells, despite the possible benefits that might come from such research. Embryonic stem cells have the potential to become any cell type that exists in the human body. They could become heart cells, liver cells, eye tissue or anything. The controversy arises in the way stem cells are collected. You need an embryo to collect stem cells and most of these embryos come from fertility clinics. Skeptics fear that parents will be coerced into creating more embryos than they need that will either be sold or donated for stem cell research. They argue that the embryos have the potential to grow into a human being and thus destroying them is destroying life. Scientists argue that the embryos are not alive, nor will they ever be, and they believe that research in stem cells may lead to great medical advancements that will potentially save millions of lives.
Philip K. Dick would argue, as E. O. Wilson has, that scientists have ethical obligations and these ethics are determined by society. Dick would not weigh the cost and potential benefit of going against the people. He also would not look at the dilemma and consider whether or not people were being used as a means to an end. Before weighing in on any scientific ethical dilemma he would analyze the will of the people. If society is against the method of research he would argue it is unethical. Scientists cannot afford to bring in their own personal ethics when it comes to deciding which research to pursue. They have every right to decide not to do research based on their own ethics, but they should not carry out research that the population does not want.
Scientists have a large responsibility: They are trusted with knowledge that many people could not be trusted with. Their knowledge can be used for good or for bad, and the distinction is rarely clear. A seemingly benign discovery could lead to the creation of a new super-weapon. Einstein’s relationship between mass and energy seems fairly innocuous and it is probably the only equation from physics that most non-academics can reasonably be expected to know: E=mc2. However, that physical concept was used to create nuclear weapons. A scientist cannot always see the impact his research will have and cannot plan for all possibilities. Society helps to provide a moral compass. As long as we do not halt scientific advancement completely, some impedance is desirable. It forces the scientist to consider the dilemma from multiple angles and consider more possibilities.
Scientists have a responsibility to society, according to Philip K. Dick. They have the right to decline research based on their own personal set of ethics; however, they should not conduct research outside the boundaries set by society. Ethics are not handed down, but rather they have evolved through the human experience and they are influenced and changed as our society advances. If our past has taught us nothing else, it is that our beliefs can change and that people can cause the change. If a scientist takes issue with the ethics of society, it is his responsibility to inspire a change; not through subversion, but through persuasion.
