The relationship between science and society has never been more complex, or more consequential. As research capabilities expand at an unprecedented pace - from gene editing to artificial intelligence - the question of who bears responsibility for scientific outcomes has become urgent. Is it the scientist in the laboratory, following the logic of discovery? Or is it society, which funds research and lives with its consequences? The answer, unsettlingly, is both - and the boundaries between these responsibilities are far from clear.
The Scientist's Perspective: Freedom and Accountability
For centuries, scientists operated under what might be called the "neutrality doctrine." In the 19th century, academic researchers proclaimed the neutrality of science, stating that the advancement of knowledge could not be considered good or bad, and that science was not responsible for its applications (EMBO Reports, 2005). The role of the scientist was to discover truth, not to judge how that truth might be used. This doctrine offered a comfortable moral distance: if nuclear physics enabled atomic bombs, that was humanity's failing, not physics'.
This position has become untenable. Scientists have a unique responsibility to shepherd change with thoughtful advocacy of their research and careful ethical scrutiny of their own behavior, as society invests scientists with public trust and privilege, granting them access to funds, materials, and public institutions (Darryl, 2006). The scientist cannot claim to be merely a neutral observer when their work is funded by public money, conducted in public institutions, and capable of reshaping human life.
Yet this responsibility creates genuine dilemmas. Scientists face ethical questions when deciding how to act responsibly, including dilemmas related to problem selection, publication, and data sharing, and engaging society (Resnik & Elliott, 2015). Should a virologist studying pandemic preparedness publish findings that could help develop vaccines - even if those same findings might enable bioterrorists? Should a neuroscientist pursuing treatments for PTSD avoid research that could enhance interrogation techniques? These are not abstract questions but daily realities for researchers.
The concept of "dual-use research" crystallizes this challenge. Dual-use research in the life sciences encompasses biological research witha legitimate scientific purpose, the results of which may be misused to pose a biological threat to public health or national security (NSABB, 2007). Consider a 2022 thought experiment where researchers demonstrated that artificial intelligence could be misused to design de novo bioweapons by reversing a molecule generator to prioritize toxicity, generating thousands of compounds resembling chemical warfare agents within hours (Urbina et al., 2022). The scientists involved weren't developing weapons - they were exploring AI's capabilities. Yet their work illuminated a terrifying possibility.
Society's Stake: From Funding to Consequences
Society's relationship to science is paradoxical. We demand innovation to solve pressing problems - climate change, disease, energy scarcity - yet we're deeply ambivalent about the changes science brings. The public, in general, is not scientifically sophisticated, yet somehow manages to negotiate its way to consensus on various scientific issues, such as accepting animal cloning while opposing human reproductive cloning (Darryl, 2006).
This tension reflects a fundamental truth: Scientists have obligations to society because they have benefited from government support of their education and research, and because researchers who cause harm or fail to do good may undermine public support for science (Shamoo & Resnik, 2014). The social contract is clear: society provides resources and autonomy; scientists provide knowledge and careful stewardship of their work's implications.
But society also bears responsibility for how it deploys scientific knowledge. It is necessary to conduct ethical discussions to adapt the use of scientific knowledge to a general context that is in agreement with the basic principles of civilization (EMBO Reports, 2005). When pharmaceutical companies suppress unfavorable drug trial data, when governments weaponize research, when industries ignore environmental science - these are not scientific failures but societal ones. Scientists may provide the tools, but society chooses how to wield them.
Where the Boundaries Blur
The most difficult ethical terrain lies where scientific and societal responsibilities overlap and conflict. Consider three contested boundaries:
Publication versus Security: Should journals publish findings that could enable harm? From the public health perspective, good intentions will not mitigate forward-looking responsibility for the consequences of malevolent applications of biodefense research (Kelley, 2006). Yet significantly restricting access to information could potentially decrease the transparency of scientific research to the wider public, an important feature of any citizen-supported institution in a liberal society (Kelley, 2006). How do we balance open science against security concerns?
Corporate versus Public Interest: Scientists in academia and industry are increasingly collaborating, and universities encourage their scientists to request funds from industry and to patent their results, with scientists increasingly owning patents or shares or acting as consultants for companies (EMBO Reports, 2005). This blurs the line between public knowledge and private profit. Who owns research conducted with public funds but commercialized by private entities? When corporate interests conflict with public health, whose responsibility is it to intervene?
Global versus Local: Scientific knowledge doesn't respect borders. In a globalized world, problems on one side of the planet can soon become global issues, as readily seen with global pandemics, environmental degradation, and bioweapons (Hurst, 2024). Yet ethical frameworks and regulations remain largely national. A technique banned in one country can be pursued in another. Who bears responsibility for research conducted across borders?
Philosophical Foundations: Beyond Consequentialism
The ethical challenges of modern science reveal limitations in traditional moral frameworks. Pure consequentialism - judging actions solely by outcomes - proves inadequate when consequences are unpredictable or when the same research yields both benefits and harms. Yet deontological approaches - focusing on rules and duties - struggle with the novel dilemmas posed by unprecedented technologies.
Perhaps what's needed is a virtue ethics approach centered on scientific integrity and practical wisdom. Scientists, like all professionals, have ethical responsibilities at three levels: personal responsibility for the integrity of their research, relations with colleagues and subordinates, and role as representatives of their profession to society and the public (Darryl, 2006). This suggests that scientific ethics isn't primarily about following rules but about cultivating judgment - the ability to navigate competing goods and recognize when standard procedures prove insufficient.
Recommendations for the Road Ahead
Drawing boundaries between scientific and societal responsibility may be impossible - and perhaps the attempt is misguided. Instead, we might focus on building robust mechanisms for shared accountability:
For Scientists: Embrace proactive ethics. Scientists who exercise social responsibility often face ethical dilemmas, and collaborations with scholars who have expertise in ethics, politics, or public policy may help scientists deal with the value implications of their work (Resnik & Elliott, 2015). Don't wait for society to demand accountability; build it into research design from the beginning.
For Institutions: Create genuine forums for ethical deliberation, not just compliance checkboxes. In the 21st century, ways of separating the scientific method from values, beliefs, and opinions are no longer self-evident, and the complex realities of science call for a greater consensus in the ethical principles of scientific research (UNESCO, 2019). Ethics committees should include diverse voices - not just scientists and bioethicists but also representatives of communities affected by research.
For Society: Accept that restricting science is sometimes necessary but always costly. Some life scientists are already acting, even in the absence of government regulations and guidance, to protect against the perceived risk of misuse of dual-use research (NRC & AAAS, 2009). Rather than imposing blanket restrictions, foster cultures of responsibility that empower scientists to make difficult decisions while maintaining democratic oversight.
For Education: Education in the responsible conduct of research should include ample time to discuss ethical questions related to exercising social responsibility, as these are important issues that are not always clear-cut and require thoughtful reflection (Resnik & Elliott, 2015). Future scientists need training not just in technique but in ethical reasoning and public engagement.
Conclusion: Responsibility as Dialogue
The boundaries between scientific and societal responsibility aren't fixed lines but ongoing negotiations. Every breakthrough, every application, every unintended consequence reshapes these boundaries. The key isn't to definitively demarcate who is responsible for what, but to maintain continuous dialogue between scientists and society.
The time is ripe for scientific communities to reinvigorate professionalism and define the basis of their social contract, as codifying this contract will sustain public trust in the scientific enterprise (Jones, 2007). This requires honesty about science's limitations and uncertainties, humility about the scope of scientific authority, and courage to engage difficult ethical questions even when answers remain elusive.
Science is humanity's most powerful tool for understanding and reshaping the world. With such power comes not just responsibility but the need for wisdom - knowing not only what we can do, but what we should do, and who should decide. That wisdom emerges not from scientists alone, nor from society alone, but from their sustained, often uncomfortable, always essential conversation.
References
Darryl, R. J. (2006). Reasons Scientists Avoid Thinking about Ethics. Cell, 125(6), 1069-1071.
EMBO Reports (2005). Science and ethics: As research and technology are changing society and the way we live, scientists can no longer claim that science is neutral. EMBO Reports, 6(6), 493-496.
Hurst, S. (2024). Dual Use Research of Concern - The Necessity of Global Bioethics Engagement. Bioethics, 38(9).
Jones, N. L. (2007). A code of ethics for the life sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(1), 25-43.
Kelley, M. (2006). Infectious Disease Research and Dual-Use Risk. AMA Journal of Ethics, 8(4), 266-270.
National Research Council (NRC) & American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (2009). A Survey of Attitudes and Actions on Dual Use Research in the Life Sciences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB). (2007). Proposed Framework for the Oversight of Dual Use Life Sciences Research: Strategies for Minimizing the Potential Misuse of Research Information.
Resnik, D. B., & Elliott, K. C. (2015). The Ethical Challenges of Socially Responsible Science. Accountability in Research, 23(1), 31-46.
Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2014). Responsible Conduct of Research (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
UNESCO (2019). Science, ethics and responsibility. World Science Forum, Budapest, Hungary.
Urbina, F., Lentzos, F., Invernizzi, C., & Ekins, S. (2022). Dual use of artificial-intelligence-powered drug discovery. Nature Machine Intelligence, 4(3), 189-191.
