Out of all the scientific researchers working at U of T, how many of them are using their “great minds” to solve questions that may lead to a “great future” for life on Earth? How is it that, within the past several years, we have been nearing the reality of being able to clone new humans, but we are still unable to give life-saving chemicals we have possessed for decades to people dying in other parts of the world? The answer is simple. Science is the tool humans use to make their lives better, but we still have not learned to use this tool well.
Too many scientists choose to research matters of a seemingly frivolous nature. This is a barricade to useful scientific research. While millions of people die from preventable deaths and thousands of species go extinct each day, scientists with the technological or biological know-how to address these problems may instead try to determine whether the mate selection of one species of fish is or is not due to tail length. The greater aspiration of science is blackened further by research that will potentially be used for maladaptive purposes, such as biological weapons.
While scientists in all fields should ask whether their research serves a greater good, those working in medicine in particular should reflect upon the ethical implications of their research. One highly publicized and poignant example of a medical scientist who battled political and corporate influences while conducting research is Nancy Olivieri. After coming to disturbing conclusions about her research on the drug deferiprone at Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children, she disobeyed the legally binding confidentiality agreement she had signed with the drug’s manufacturer when she publicly professed that the company’s drug had harmful effects on human patients. In lieu of her own financial profit, Dr. Olivieri chose to incur a career-threatening lawsuit for the sake of her patients. Not only is such principled scientific experimentation and selflessness imperative, but the ethical employment of scientific discoveries, such as the distribution of pharmaceuticals, is vital as well.
In October of 2000, Zackie Achmat, an openly gay AIDS sufferer, was charged by the South African Medicines Control Council for illegally smuggling generic fluconazole into the country to distribute to the poor. Achmat acquired the drug from Thailand, where governmental regulation of generic competition had lowered the unit price to US$0.30.
Achmat’s decision—which, like Olivieri’s, was not influenced by selfish economic or political motives—must raise the question, “Will any good come out of such a principled sacrifice?” The answer is “no,” unless it prompts a tangible change in both the practices of institutions that decide how science is implemented, such as governments that regulate the use of techniques like stem cell manipulation, and the wills and goals of individual scientists themselves.
Researchers must individually question the motives of their studies. Research institutions like U of T must also attack problems such as the containment of disease and the prevention of somatic and psychological illness. Researchers must set goals pertaining to the time and strategies they will devote to solve these problems. Scientists and scientists-in-training must take responsibility for applying their scientific pursuits not just for themselves, but for the benefit of all life.
