The Council for Science & Technology marks its introduction

As part of National Science Week, the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, will launch an ethical code of conduct for scientists.

The code, Rigour, respect and responsibility: a universal ethical code for scientists (see right) has resulted from a working group Sir David convened in 2004. He asked the Council for Science and Technology (CST) to look at how the code could be disseminated more widely and how, in practice, it could have a useful role.

During consultation, the proposed code was generally well received by universities, professional bodies and so on, and there was general agreement that it could be a useful catalyst for stimulating debate and raising awareness among scientists of their ethical, professional and legal responsibilities.

Purpose of the code
Two main roles were identified:

• Educating and training new scientists 
  Recent developments in GCSE and A level curricula, which require students to develop a greater understanding of the way science works and that are in part intended to increase young people’s interest and engagement with science, mean that the code could provide a useful resource for teachers and students.  
  At the university level, the code could contribute to taught courses on research ethics and methods at both the undergraduate and postgraduate level.  Several universities gave examples of courses that they offer where the code might be used.
• Informing and supporting the development of more specific codes 
  The consultation confirmed that many organisations have codes of conduct and ethical frameworks in place that are specific to their own needs.  The code could form a checklist of minimum standards for the content of more specific codes and could also sit alongside as a supplement. 
  For example: the Royal Academy of Engineering used the code to inform the development of their Statement of Ethical Principles for professional engineers; several professional bodies said that they would post the code on their website and bring it the attention of their members; and one University told us that they will be amending their own policies to bring out the expectation that scientists should ‘seek to discuss the issues that science raises for society’.

The CST’s consultation had suggested some more formal roles for the code, such as forming part of graduation ceremonies, being linked to employment and research contracts, or being adopted by institutions or individuals as a public statement of their working methods. There was almost no support for these proposals. The general view was that there is little to be gained from introducing an ethical code into formal structures unless it can be enforced, and it is very difficult to see how enforcement mechanisms could be applied to such a general code.

Promoting and piloting
CST therefore recommended that Office of Science and Technology (OST) should promote the code’s role as a focus for reflecting on the ethical, professional and legal responsibilities of scientists.

OST is leading an exercise through the cross-government science and society champions network to pilot the code among government scientists. An interim report will be available in March, with a final report in the autumn.