ADAMANT

Well, I Swear

Here for Establishment Clause fans is the latest conundrum on the science policy front. Nature says Britain wants a ‘Hippocratic oath for scientists’. A Constitutional question as to by which God this great and terrible oath must be sworn may arise from the wording of the original :

............              ..."I Swear By Apollo The Physician ..."

                 "The BBC is reporting on a ‘universal code of ethics for scientists’ set out by the UK government’s chief scientific advisor. Sir David King hopes researchers across the globe will adopt his seven principles (you can listen to him on the BBC’s Radio 4) and the UK government has already adopted them. The BBC thinks this could be the scientific equivalent of medicine’s Hippocratic oath.

“Our social licence to operate as scientists needs to be founded on a continually renewed relationship of trust between scientists and society. The code has been developed in my office to help us meet this challenge,” says Sir David in a leaflet promoting the ‘Rigour, Respect, Responsibility’ code. This code has been mooted for some time (the Guardian wrote about it last year) and the issue of whether scientists should have a ‘code of ethics’ has been doing the round for even longer. The real question is whether this code is actually any use.

Which seems like a good opportunity to apply the ‘not test’: would anyone actually profess not to support any of these points? Here’s the code:

- Act with skill and care in all scientific work. Maintain up to date skills and assist their development in others.
- Take steps to prevent corrupt practices and professional misconduct. Declare conflicts of interest.
- Be alert to the ways in which research derives from and affects the work of other people, and respect the rights and reputations of others.
- Ensure that your work is lawful and justified.
- Minimise and justify any adverse effect your work may have on people, animals and the natural environment.
- Seek to discuss the issues that science raises for society. Listen to the aspirations and concerns of others.
- Do not knowingly mislead, or allow others to be misled, about scientific matters. Present and review scientific evidence, theory or interpretation honestly and accurately.

A Singular Superstition

The neoconservative mind deconvoluted at last!
At a  meeting on artificial intelligence ??

Last year's Smith Family Foundation debate on science policy, featuring Wesley Smith, invites comparison with an  improbable venue that has yielded an unexpectedly deep insight into the present day reality of political science. At this year's Singularity  Summit  , Sam Adams who directs  IBM's Joshua Blue Project concluded that the only sure path to AI is the " way we walked ourselves," -- intelligent  systems, like small children need rearing  in order to learn to think  about the difference between appearance and reality. Both needs  must be taught that not all patterns are real ,and that false impressions, however early the may be imposed or accepted ,  must be actively discarded-- one must balance superstition with forgetfulness. The  mirror image of  his view  presents itself in  Washington , as  reality is deliberately forgotten or set aside  whenever it gets in the way of  turning  metaphysics into the basis of policy. 

Those who do so insist on a critical distinction between philosophical or religious  Truth, with a capital T, and mere facts based on observation . Only thus ,they argue, can policy be subordinated to ethical imperatives , rather than becoming a plaything of amoral  materialism. Within the  artificially constructed reality in which their political operatives  are reared , it is scientific facts that must be subordinated to metaphysical imperatives that exist a priori, stemming  from the Author of Creation and  revealed in his Word.  Says who?  Those who have welded apologetics to politics in justifying the fusion of church and state in order to deliver the votes of those disposed by their upbringing to delegate  their thinking to those that preach. To disagree with this earns reflexive denunciation as  'secular materialism' ,  as heresy is called nowadays, but what would say, Martin Luther make of those who go along with the program ?

Tacitus observed that  human nature is such that people hate those whom they injure, and since neoconservative dogmatists may do much harm to themselves, it is unremarkable that they should accuse those who object to their theories of being dogmatic. Anthropologists cheerfully concede the many societal benefits of religion, but some believers think it  natural to demanding equal time for the supernatural in teaching students about explanations of the world, and to declare  present scientific theories indistinguishable from the mass of past superstitions?  If you think this a parody of  their philosophy of education, look to the record of what the Discovery Institute said when it had its day in court in the recent Pennsylvania  Darwin trial.

If  the politicization of science consists most basically in having one set of facts for internal discourse and another for purposes of publicity, then what are we to make of neo-legalists who want the evidentary criteria of the physical sciences subordinated to the dictates of canon law , legal theory , or Talmudic exegesis when it comes to proving what belongs in elementary biology texts?  The old left  provided ample matter for "The Closing Of The American Mind" now it is time for palaeoconservtives to stand up and read the riot act to  neocons bent on providing a mirror-image sequel.