Connecting Past with Present: A Mixed-Methods Science Ethics Course and its Evaluation.

We present a graduate science ethics course that connects cases from the historical record to present realities and practices in the areas of social responsibility, authorship, and human/animal experimentation. This content is delivered with mixed methods, including films, debates, blogging, and practicum; even the instructional team is mixed, including a historian of science and a research scientist. What really unites all of the course's components is the experiential aspect: from acting in historical debates to participating in the current scientific enterprise. The course aims to change the students' culture into one deeply devoted to the science ethics cause. To measure the sought after cultural change, we developed and validated a relevant questionnaire. Results of this questionnaire from students who took the course, demonstrate that the course had the intended effect on them. Furthermore, results of this questionnaire from controls indicate the need for cultural change in that cohort. All these quantitative results are reinforced by qualitative outcomes.

A quantitative perspective on ethics in large team science.

The gradual crowding out of singleton and small team science by large team endeavors is challenging key features of research culture. It is therefore important for the future of scientific practice to reflect upon the individual scientist's ethical responsibilities within teams. To facilitate this reflection we show labor force trends in the US revealing a skewed growth in academic ranks and increased levels of competition for promotion within the system; we analyze teaming trends across disciplines and national borders demonstrating why it is becoming difficult to distribute credit and to avoid conflicts of interest; and we use more than a century of Nobel prize data to show how science is outgrowing its old institutions of singleton awards. Of particular concern within the large team environment is the weakening of the mentor-mentee relation, which undermines the cultivation of virtue ethics across scientific generations. These trends and emerging organizational complexities call for a universal set of behavioral norms that transcend team heterogeneity and hierarchy. To this end, our expository analysis provides a survey of ethical issues in team settings to inform science ethics education and science policy.

Feelings and ethics education: the film dear scientists.

There is an increasing body of evidence that not only cognition but also emotions shape moral judgment. The conventional teaching of responsible conduct of research, however, does not target emotions; its emphasis is on rational analysis. Here I present a new approach, 'the feelings method,' for incorporating emotions into science ethics education. This method is embodied in Dear Scientists, an innovative film that combines humanities with arts and works at the subconscious level, delivering an intense mix of music and images, contrasted by calm narration. Dear Scientists has struck a chord across the science, humanities, and arts communities-a promising sign.

Legitimating a nuclear critic: John Gofman, radiation safety, and cancer risks.

Whether low-level ionizing radiation has an effect on humans has been a polarizing issue for the last fifty years. The epicenter of this controversy has been the validity of the linear non-threshold dose-response model, according to which any amount of radiation, however small, causes damage to human genes and health. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the nuclear scientist and medical researcher John Gofman (1918-2007) played a pivotal role in the debate. Historical accounts have treated Gofman as a radical antinuclear scientist whose unscientific arguments put enormous political pressure on the nuclear power industry and regulatory agencies. Gofman's bitter struggle with the Atomic Energy Commission, which funded his research at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, partly accounts for this view. However, my analysis of Gofman's involvement in the low-level radiation debate shows how he also helped shift the focus in radiation safety from the risks of genetic damage or leukemia to somatic or cancer risks. His arguments led to the introduction of the linear non-threshold radiation model as a means of numerically estimating cancer risks. This was a watershed event in radiation-safety science and politics. Gofman's case sheds light on the process by which a scientist could secure legitimation even when his technical arguments threatened the government's interests. I conclude that it also points to an open issue in the history of antinuclear scientists, or of other politically active scientists or technology critics: treating them as critics should not preclude historians from treating them as scientists.