**Update below
Okay, fasten your seat belts (how is it that that isn't a compound word by now?)--let's examine the body of the 3 versions of the creed/code. We start with a "pledge" to the "Public". First, that's quite an expansive term all on its own, but simple enough to define--that means a community as a "whole"...all of us. Now, as there is more to the creed/code than just this statement of responsibility to all of us there must be "competing interests" and "competing motivations" that our ethical chemist must deal with. We shall see.
Let's first speculate that the Chemist's Creed of 1965 is possibly a public avowal of the "trust us" variety in response to the 1962 publication of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring. I mean, if there's any science to be suspicious of it's the one that makes the things that kill off species as a matter of course (and motivation).
But, I think we'll see that this is a creed for the arrogant (well, I think they all are, right--an oath to your chosen "gang" means you believe (belief!) your gang is best and true and right!).
1965--Creed
As a Chemist, I Have a Responsibility:
to the public
to propagate a true understanding of chemical science, avoiding premature, false, or exaggerated statements, to discourage enterprises or practices inimical to the public interest or welfare, and to share with other citizens a responsibility for the right and beneficent use of scientific discoveries.
The Creed! I have to admit to feeling predisposed to liking this version--it's a statement of belief! This is something that stakes a claim for a way of being in this world. That's powerful. (this creed is full-on.) But oh, man...that first phrase is rough right off the bat. "Propagate"! Only the public of 1965 can understand that word. What's striking to me is that this comes more readily out of the mouth of biologists as it basically means "breed". I will "breed" "true understanding". Cripes, that's a mouthful. I guess in the context of the code that means...well, I don't know. But it really can be seen as the very basis of the Scientific relationship with the "common" understanding. If we see this as a response to Carson's Silent Spring then it really is a kind of attack on those who would pronounce on the actions and effects of chemistry from "outside" of chemistry. Carson was a biologist after all, attacking the chemical industry on the misuse of pesticides. "I, the chemist, only can "propagate" the true understanding of chemistry to the unwashed public." So, the chemist will avoid, "false or exaggerated" claims (made by others? It doesn't say, "I will not make any false or exaggerated claims") and discourage enterprises or practices inimical to the public interest or welfare. Again, to be clear, it does not say "I will not". The only positive statement here is that the chemist will propagate true understanding.
The close of this first proposition "to the public" is oddly phrased. Not only does it become positive again (in the sense of "share" vs "discourage"), though not very "active", it repeats "responsibility". I have a responsibility to "share a responsibility with other citizens". Huh? Well, I think this can (should) be read to mean the chemist will share his/her very "true-ness" with us. In essence, the chemist will proclaim by propagation of true understanding, will discourage premature, exaggerated, and false statements (by Rachel Carson!) as well as inimical enterprises and practices (attacking the indiscriminate use of pesticides as bad in The New Yorker!)--all this by "sharing" that he is a responsible actor for the "right and beneficent use of scientific discoveries". "Right" cannot really be defended here as this requires a "defining against" but I laud their sneaky use of "beneficent use". This is a word closely linked to "charitable". But it simply means "we" will use our discoveries the way we see fit and we will share with you that use and you will trust our understanding and our beneficence. (The way one trusts the church to be "good" in the face of apparent and evident bad acts.)
Phew, I was going to go ahead and compare the others, but I'm tired. I have talked myself into being even more cynical though! Awesome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Carson
**Update:
I thought I would have similar rubbish to work with on the rest of this Creed, however, I don't. I can dismiss all of the rest of this as simply a toady's oath to industry. Highlights include: to my Employer--serve him undividedly and zealously; to my clients--be a faithful and incorruptible agent. So, briefer 1965 Chemist's Creed: I, the chemist, as a member of the most perfect branch of modern science, am right. I will denigrate and denounce all other proclamations against chemistry (rather the chemical industry). My masters are always right, too!
No comments:
Post a Comment