Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Advances in biomedicine can substantially change human life. However, progress is not always followed by ethical reflection on its consequences or scientists’ responsibility for their creations. The humanities can help health sciences students learn to critically analyse these issues; in particular, literature can aid discussions about ethical principles in biomedical research. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein; or, the modern Prometheus (1818) is an example of a classic novel presenting complex scenarios that could be used to stimulate discussion. Main text Within the framework of the 200th anniversary of the novel, we searched PubMed to identify works that explore and discuss its value in teaching health sciences. Our search yielded 56 articles, but only two of these reported empirical findings. Our analysis of these articles identified three main approaches to using Frankenstein in teaching health sciences: discussing the relationship between literature and science, analysing ethical issues in biomedical research, and examining the importance of empathy and compassion in healthcare and research. After a critical discussion of the articles, we propose using Frankenstein as a teaching tool to prompt students to critically analyse ethical aspects of scientific and technological progress, the need for compassion and empathy in medical research, and scientists’ responsibility for their discoveries. Conclusion Frankenstein can help students reflect on the personal and social limits of science, the connection between curiosity and scientific progress, and scientists’ responsibilities. Its potential usefulness in teaching derives from the interconnectedness of science, ethics, and compassion. Frankenstein can be a useful tool for analysing bioethical issues related to scientific and technological advances, such as artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, and cloning. Empirical studies measuring learning outcomes are necessary to confirm the usefulness of this approach.

The discussion of social responsibility has expanded from ethical conduct of research to include a broader range of topics including participating in the policy-making process, engaging in public discourse related to science, and promoting projects serving societal common goods. Although such an expanded framework on social responsibility is increasingly popular, existing scales on social responsibilities are limited. The current study developed and validated a scale for measuring the “Views of Social Responsibility of Scientists and Engineers” (VSRoSE). The draft scale with 60 items, which were scrutinized through expert deliberation, was administered to 327 college students majoring in STEM fields. Exploratory factor analysis supported an eight-factor solution with 30 items, with acceptable Cronbach’s alphas for all eight scales. Subsequently, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted with an independent set of data from 279 college students and the hypothesized factor structure fit the data with acceptable Cronbach’s alphas. The concurrent and criterion validity evidence was presented and the pedagogical implications of the VSRoSE in the STEM field and education were discussed.

Scientific and technological research is important to everyone because their results affect humanity worldwide. Although science and technology bring many benefits to humanity, individuals and societies can face the negative consequences of science and technology. To prevent and solve the negative consequences of research in these fields, it is important to educate scientists and engineers to have social responsibility. However, no research has addressed pre-service science teachers’ views of social responsibility in literature. Therefore, this study aimed to explore Chinese pre-service science teachers' views on the social responsibility of scientists and engineers. The research participants were 194 pre-service science teachers. A social responsibility instrument was administered for data collection. The results showed that participants had high mean scores in five areas of social responsibility and a good awareness of the role of scientists and engineers in addressing problems and risks related to human, environmental, and societal impacts. However, they had lower mean scores in three areas requiring action or involvement. In addition, the results did not show statistical differences by gender or grade level. In light of our findings, we conclude pedagogical and practical implications for teachers and researchers in teaching social responsibility.

The word “sustainability” is often used in business in the belief that the current ways of doing things will be able to be continued with only minor changes to balance economic development with related environmental and social issues. There are, however, immense challenges that threaten the very sustainability of our global society, let alone individual businesses or developments. A few of the most important of these challenges—population growth, clean energy supply, fresh water availability, and global climate change—are discussed. As humanity forms its collective response to these threats, it is concluded that all intelligent people, but especially scientists, have important roles to play, not only in technical innovation, but also in catalyzing political action.

Studies of ethical challenges that can confront practicing scientists and engineers in the entrepreneurial stage of the overarching research-and-innovation process are virtually non-existent. This paper explores ethical challenges that arose at a specific entrepreneurial startup: Theranos, the defunct blood-testing company. The fundamental ethical responsibilities of scientists and engineers (FERSEs) offer a framework useful for evaluating the conduct of practicing scientists and engineers from an ethical responsibility perspective. Questionable conduct by Theranos’s former top managers has been widely discussed. However, the fact that a number of Theranos scientists and engineers responded to ethical challenges in several phases of the innovation/entrepreneurial stage with ethically responsible conduct has gone largely unrecognized. Ten mini cases involving these practitioners are discussed. Their deeds reflect different harm-prevention strategies. The Theranos case suggests several ethics-related takeaways for scientists and engineers who work or may work in technical startups. Familiarity with the FERSEs and knowledge of the ethical challenges, ethically responsible conduct, and harm-prevention strategies exhibited in the Theranos case provide valuable intellectual resources for startup scientists and engineers who aspire to be ethically responsible professionals.

This article examines ethical implications of the growing AI carbon footprint, focusing on the fair distribution of prospective responsibilities among groups of involved actors. First, major groups of involved actors are identified, including AI scientists, AI industry, and AI infrastructure providers, from datacenters to electrical energy suppliers. Second, responsibilities of AI scientists concerning climate warming mitigation actions are disentangled from responsibilities of other involved actors. Third, to implement these responsibilities nudging interventions are suggested, leveraging on AI competitive games which would prize research combining better system accuracy with greater computational and energy efficiency. Finally, in addition to the AI carbon footprint, it is argued that another ethical issue with a genuinely global dimension is now emerging in the AI ethics agenda. This issue concerns the threats that AI-powered cyberweapons pose to the digital command, control, and communication infrastructure of nuclear weapons systems.

Scientists investigate, describe, invent and create. Most advances in medicine, technology and understanding of the living world in the context of the cosmos, are attributable to systematic efforts by expert researchers. However, pervasive toxins, persistent environmental pollution, destructive weaponry and resource depletion are also outcomes of scientific efforts. Furthermore, although we have reached great advances in some research fields, other issues are enigmatic and arguably could be investigated with other methods or mindsets. That, however, brings us to a paradoxical realization: Despite the fact that there are more scientists in this world than ever before, due to socialization and indoctrination we are currently suffering from reduced cognitive diversity within academic disciplines. Arguably, scientists are not taught to think independently and differently, instead we are educated into a compliant, univocal and homogenous, ‘Wissenschaftlicher Denkkollektiv.’

The central question addressed is: How should scientific research be conducted so as to ensure that nature is respected and the well being of everyone everywhere enhanced? After pointing to the importance of methodological pluralism for an acceptable answer and to obstacles posed by characterizing scientific methodology too narrowly, which are reinforced by the ‘commercial-scientific ethos’, two additional questions are considered: How might research, conducted in this way, have impact on—and depend on—strengthening democratic values and practices? And: What is thereby implied for the responsibilities of scientists today?

This article responds to Janet Kourany's proposal, in Philosophy of Science after Feminism, that scientific practices be held to the ideal of ' socially responsible science', to produce results that are not only cognitively sound, but also significant in the light of values \"that can be morally justified'. Kourany also urges the development of 'contextualized philosophy of science'—of which feminist philosophy of science is exemplary—that is 'politically engaged' and 'activist', 'informed by analyses of the actual ways in which science interacts with the wider society in which it occurs, the ways in which science is shaped by and in turn shapes society', and that can contribute to understanding both the cognitive and social dimensions of science. Although I share Kourany's commitment to contextualized philosophy of science, I question her proposed ideal of 'socially responsible science' and the grounds she provides for adopting it. My argument leads me to defend rehabilitating the traditional ideal of the 'neutrality' of science, which I reinterpret as the ideal of 'inclusiveness and evenhandedness'.

Little if any of the scholarly literature on nanotechnology (NT) and ethics is directed at NT researchers. Many of these practitioners believe that having clear ethical guidelines for the conduct of NT research is necessary. This work attempts to provide such guidelines. While no qualitatively new ethical issues unique to NT have yet been identified, the ethical responsibilities identified below merit serious attention by NT researchers. Thirteen specific ethical responsibilities arising at three levels are identified. They are derived by applying four fundamental ethical responsibilities of scientists and engineers to the specific conditions of NT research and researchers in contemporary Western societies. Since society is placing increasing importance on producing scientists and engineers who combine high technical competence with a sensitive ethical compass, study of the ethical dimension of NT, including the identified ethical responsibilities, should become a required element of the formal education of all NT researchers. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]