Science, ethics, and war.

Abstract

We scientists understand that it is difficult to get at the facts, let alone the truth. With regard to this observation, I was intrigued by the confluence of themes in three pieces in the 28 March issue. In his News Focus article “U.N. inspections find wisps of smoke but no smoking guns” (28 Mar., p. [1967][1]), Richard Stone got one fact wrong. Inspectors were not “thrown out” by the Iraqi government in November 1998. Iraq did indeed end cooperation, but in August of 1998 ([1][2]). Three months later, on 17 November 1998, inspections resumed after Iraq once again agreed to fully cooperate ([2][3]). The U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM)withdrew inspectors on 16 December 1998 upon learning that the United States and Britain would start a bombing campaign the next day. Although known weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were destroyed in 1998, the military action launched this March cut short the U.N. Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission's efforts to get at the facts of current Iraqi weapons programs. And, as Donald Kennedy points out in his Editorial “Science and the war” (28 Mar., p. [1945][4]), we are now unlikely to get at the truth. To Kennedy's list of the role of science in this time of war, I would add research into factors that determine whether a regime change might be violent or peaceful. Can we encourage peaceful regime changes, examples of which are Poland, the former USSR, and the former Czechoslovakia among others, as an alternative to war? I would remove from his list weapons research. If, as a society, we are truly concerned about the proliferation of arms and WMD, we would not ask our scientists to work on weapons, no matter how “smart” such weapons may be. Such research is unethical and should be actively discouraged. I was thus heartened to read the letter by C. R. Craig et al. , “An ethical affirmation for scientists” (28 Mar., p. [1982][5]). In an effort to “do no harm,” scientists must consider the ethical, environmental, and societal implications of their research and the technologies that result. Sometimes this will mean a personal decision not to do certain research. More generally, scientists are obligated to actively communicate their knowledge of the facts, as well as the unknowns, that pertain to the implications of their research so that decision-makers and society at large can make the most informed choices possible. Although facts are easily manipulated by governments, corporations, groups, and individuals into convenient half-truths for pecuniary or political gain, we ultimately are responsible for the impact our research has on global society. # Response {#article-title-2} UNSCOM's demise is indeed convoluted and bears further explanation. On 31 October 1998, Iraq suspended all UNSCOM activities, including monitoring. The U.N. Security Council condemned that decision, and as a consequence, on 11 November, all UNSCOM inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq. Were they “thrown out”? I grant that they were not grabbed by the lapels and escorted to their plane. Iraq failed to follow through on its subsequent promise of full cooperation: According to a 15 December letter from UNSCOM's chairman to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, “Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in either the fields of disarmament or accounting for its prohibited weapons programmes.” 1. 1.[↵][6] 1. J. M. Goshko , Washington Post , p. A21 See for example, 6 Aug. 1998, p. 2. 2.[↵][7] 1. P. Baker , Washington Post , p. A1 See for example, 16 Nov. 1998, p. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.299.5615.1967 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.299.5615.1945 [5]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.299.5615.1982 [6]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1. in text [7]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2. in text