Who’s Responsible If a Scientist’s Work Is Used for Harm?
A face off in medical ethics.
Are scientists morally responsible for the uses of their work? To some extent, yes. Scientists are responsible for both the uses that they intend with their work and for some of the uses they don't intend. This is because scientists bear the same moral responsibilities that we all bear, and we are all responsible for the ends we intend to help bring about and for some (but not all) of those we don't.
To not think about plausible unintended effects is to be negligent -- and to recognize, but do nothing about, such effects is to be reckless.
It should be obvious that the intended outcomes of our work are within our sphere of moral responsibility. If a scientist intends to help alleviate hunger (by, for example, breeding new drought-resistant crop strains), and they succeed in that goal, they are morally responsible for that success, and we would praise them accordingly. If a scientist intends to produce a new weapon of mass destruction (by, for example, developing a lethal strain of a virus), and they are unfortunately successful, they are morally responsible for that as well, and we would blame them accordingly. Intention matters a great deal, and we are most praised or blamed for what we intend to accomplish with our work.
But we are responsible for more than just the intended outcomes of our choices. We are also responsible for unintended but readily foreseeable uses of our work. This is in part because we are all responsible for thinking not just about what we intend, but also what else might follow from our chosen course of action. In cases where severe and egregious harms are plausible, we should act in ways that strive to prevent such outcomes. To not think about plausible unintended effects is to be negligent -- and to recognize, but do nothing about, such effects is to be reckless. To be negligent or reckless is to be morally irresponsible, and thus blameworthy. Each of us should think beyond what we intend to do, reflecting carefully on what our course of action could entail, and adjusting our choices accordingly.
It is this area, of unintended but readily foreseeable (and plausible) impacts, that often creates the most difficulty for scientists. Many scientists can become so focused on their work (which is often demanding) and so focused on achieving their intended goals, that they fail to stop and think about other possible implications.
Debates over "dual-use" research exemplify these concerns, where harmful potential uses of research might mean the work should not be pursued, or the full publication of results should be curtailed. When researchers perform gain-of-function research, pushing viruses to become more transmissible or more deadly, it is clear how dangerous such work could be in the wrong hands. In these cases, it is not enough to simply claim that such uses were not intended and that it is someone else's job to ensure that the materials remain secure. We know securing infectious materials can be error-prone (recall events at the CDC and the FDA).
In some areas of research, scientists are already worrying about the unintended possible downsides of their work.
Further, securing viral strains does nothing to secure the knowledge that could allow for reproducing the viral strain (particularly when the methodologies and/or genetic sequences are published after the fact, as was the case for H5N1 and horsepox). It is, in fact, the researcher's moral responsibility to be concerned not just about the biosafety controls in their own labs, but also which projects should be pursued (Will the gain in knowledge be worth the possible downsides?) and which results should be published (Will a result make it easier for a malicious actor to deploy a new bioweapon?).
We have not yet had (to my knowledge) a use of gain-of-function research to harm people. If that does happen, those who actually released the virus on the public will be most blameworthy–-intentions do matter. But the scientists who developed the knowledge deployed by the malicious actors may also be held blameworthy, especially if the malicious use was easy to foresee, even if it was not pleasant to think about.
In some areas of research, scientists are already worrying about the unintended possible downsides of their work. Scientists investigating gene drives have thought beyond the immediate desired benefits of their work (e.g. reducing invasive species populations) and considered the possible spread of gene drives to untargeted populations. Modeling the impacts of such possibilities has led some researchers to pull back from particular deployment possibilities. It is precisely such thinking through both the intended and unintended possible outcomes that is needed for responsible work.
The world has gotten too small, too vulnerable for scientists to act as though they are not responsible for the uses of their work, intended or not. They must seek to ensure that, as the recent AAAS Statement on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility demands, their work is done "in the interest of humanity." This requires thinking beyond one's intentions, potentially drawing on the expertise of others, sometimes from other disciplines, to help explore implications. The need for such thinking does not guarantee good outcomes, but it will ensure that we are doing the best we can, and that is what being morally responsible is all about.
A woman receives a mammogram, which can detect the presence of tumors in a patient's breast.
When a patient is diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer, having surgery to remove the tumor is considered the standard of care. But what happens when a patient can’t have surgery?
Whether it’s due to high blood pressure, advanced age, heart issues, or other reasons, some breast cancer patients don’t qualify for a lumpectomy—one of the most common treatment options for early-stage breast cancer. A lumpectomy surgically removes the tumor while keeping the patient’s breast intact, while a mastectomy removes the entire breast and nearby lymph nodes.
Fortunately, a new technique called cryoablation is now available for breast cancer patients who either aren’t candidates for surgery or don’t feel comfortable undergoing a surgical procedure. With cryoablation, doctors use an ultrasound or CT scan to locate any tumors inside the patient’s breast. They then insert small, needle-like probes into the patient's breast which create an “ice ball” that surrounds the tumor and kills the cancer cells.
Cryoablation has been used for decades to treat cancers of the kidneys and liver—but only in the past few years have doctors been able to use the procedure to treat breast cancer patients. And while clinical trials have shown that cryoablation works for tumors smaller than 1.5 centimeters, a recent clinical trial at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York has shown that it can work for larger tumors, too.
In this study, doctors performed cryoablation on patients whose tumors were, on average, 2.5 centimeters. The cryoablation procedure lasted for about 30 minutes, and patients were able to go home on the same day following treatment. Doctors then followed up with the patients after 16 months. In the follow-up, doctors found the recurrence rate for tumors after using cryoablation was only 10 percent.
For patients who don’t qualify for surgery, radiation and hormonal therapy is typically used to treat tumors. However, said Yolanda Brice, M.D., an interventional radiologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, “when treated with only radiation and hormonal therapy, the tumors will eventually return.” Cryotherapy, Brice said, could be a more effective way to treat cancer for patients who can’t have surgery.
“The fact that we only saw a 10 percent recurrence rate in our study is incredibly promising,” she said.
Urinary tract infections account for more than 8 million trips to the doctor each year.
Few things are more painful than a urinary tract infection (UTI). Common in men and women, these infections account for more than 8 million trips to the doctor each year and can cause an array of uncomfortable symptoms, from a burning feeling during urination to fever, vomiting, and chills. For an unlucky few, UTIs can be chronic—meaning that, despite treatment, they just keep coming back.
But new research, presented at the European Association of Urology (EAU) Congress in Paris this week, brings some hope to people who suffer from UTIs.
Clinicians from the Royal Berkshire Hospital presented the results of a long-term, nine-year clinical trial where 89 men and women who suffered from recurrent UTIs were given an oral vaccine called MV140, designed to prevent the infections. Every day for three months, the participants were given two sprays of the vaccine (flavored to taste like pineapple) and then followed over the course of nine years. Clinicians analyzed medical records and asked the study participants about symptoms to check whether any experienced UTIs or had any adverse reactions from taking the vaccine.
The results showed that across nine years, 48 of the participants (about 54%) remained completely infection-free. On average, the study participants remained infection free for 54.7 months—four and a half years.
“While we need to be pragmatic, this vaccine is a potential breakthrough in preventing UTIs and could offer a safe and effective alternative to conventional treatments,” said Gernot Bonita, Professor of Urology at the Alta Bro Medical Centre for Urology in Switzerland, who is also the EAU Chairman of Guidelines on Urological Infections.
The news comes as a relief not only for people who suffer chronic UTIs, but also to doctors who have seen an uptick in antibiotic-resistant UTIs in the past several years. Because UTIs usually require antibiotics, patients run the risk of developing a resistance to the antibiotics, making infections more difficult to treat. A preventative vaccine could mean less infections, less antibiotics, and less drug resistance overall.
“Many of our participants told us that having the vaccine restored their quality of life,” said Dr. Bob Yang, Consultant Urologist at the Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust, who helped lead the research. “While we’re yet to look at the effect of this vaccine in different patient groups, this follow-up data suggests it could be a game-changer for UTI prevention if it’s offered widely, reducing the need for antibiotic treatments.”