I have often wondered about the apparent proclivity of many scientists to publish their research without considering the implications - that is to say, what others will do with their research. From atomic science and genetic engineering to the yearly reversals in dietary "science", it seems to me that research with potentially enormous social or political impact is regularly published as if into a void.

Though it is charitable to call Wertham a "scientist", it does seem that he thought of himself as a scientist, so I'll think of him that way for the sake of argument. One wonders if he envisioned congressional hearings, book burning, and another version of he Red Scare when he wrote and published his stuff - or did he simply want to get his idea "out there"?

The Biology school at my university required that all of its students take a "capstone" course called Science and Public Affairs in their senior year. I was not a science student, but I finagled my way into the course anyway because it sounded fascinating. It was; the most fascinating part was the staggering naivete of the science students when it came to how public policy is made. They were, one and all, flabbergasted when the professor told them they would someday have to convince people to use their research results as the basis for policy. "Wouldn't my research results be sufficient argument?" they would ask. "Why wouldn't someone want to base public policy on scientific fact?" The professor gave example after example of government bodies making policy decisions that were counter to, or deviant from, the findings presented by scientists, and the students were amazed.

My point is that I wonder how much this mindset prevails throughout the scientific community. "My research results speak for themselves, and it is not my fault if my work is used as the basis for evil." Isn't it at least partially the responsibility of the scientist to consider the implications of her work? Shouldn't Wertham have considered the implications of his?

Unfortunately it's rather along the lines of asking if John Yoo should have offered the Bush Administration legal wriggle room for instituting torture policies for the War on Terrorism. John Yoo is an attorney and his job was to offer the information and even go so far as to present pro-torture justifications. He was not supposed to concern himself with ethics or morality or other higher causes or repercussions.

Scientists are supposed to 'do' science. Unless their guild demands an ethically binding oath wedding them to the concept of repercussions oversight then no, they should not concern themselves with which group of unethical war or hate monkeys in top hat and tails are going to pervert their research for the 'greater good' of any particular nation.

If scientists must do so, on the other hand, then all professions must do so, or its meaningless. This is because, again in the case of John Yoo, one unethical or shortsighted attorney can be as dangerous as an Oppenheimer, and with that as a given, who knows what terrible damage could be done with the work of the breakthrough artist, any number of creative writers, and etcetera?

Should anyone in any profession or field of creativity give more than a passing thought to ethics and morality and the repercussions their work may have if it falls into opportunistic or stupid hands? The first and noble inclination is to say 'yes!' but is this the response even if it leads to stifling of creativity?

What if the scientific genius also represses genome therapy breakthroughs because he or she envisions some evil government somewhere [our own as likely as not] using the research to warp 'volunteers' into super soldier creatures, into unthinking and unfeeling beast of destruction?

So where would this self-censorship end? It is not enough to say 'think about it young scientist or attorney or writer' but it is to say 'somehow accurately predict various possible futures and what people that do not think like you will do with this breakthrough idea or ideas.'

In reality, however, we live in such a competitive and money orientated society in which any scientist or attorney or writer seriously concerned about the ethics or possible repercussions of their work are going to be shunted aside by half a dozen other eager fellows willing to do nearly anything for the money or the prestige or even for a a slightly larger office.

Finally there is the weight of already established research or ideas pushing scientists or attorneys or writers forward regardless. If one person represses something out of ethical considerations, as likely as not two or three other mental giants living in various places overseas will have nearly the identical breakthrough idea the next day, and one of them will talk. In any event 'it' will eventually surface.

Thanks for the top post. It gave me serious pause for thought this morning.

Gatewood, that's a view of the world that doesn't seem familiar to me. I know people are competitive and unethical, but those traits (while omnipresent) are never the majority opinions in any field -- scientific, creative or legal.

That's why people have to recognize when there's a scientific consensus. When there's no way to reward people who are part of the consensus (i.e. that there's no proof that ingesting 'inappropriate' materials does anything permanent to anyone: young, middle aged, or old) then you'll see a proliferation of crackpots who are willing to trade their integrity for financial gain by pandering to -- well, whatever people already think.

It's not about repressing the truth, it's about taking the publishing deal and speaking fees from people who have a non-truth agenda, from people whose minds are made up and are only looking for mouthpieces. It's about the bad apples passing themselves off as good apples and the public who is too dumb or partisan to see through it.

are actually discussing the same subject. Of course I may not have been discussing the precise subject of the top-post writer so far as that goes. The problem is the complexity of the issue, the numbers of factors affecting the core issue, and the distance one is placed for the discussion.

I suspect that the last factor is the one that prevents me from quite comprehending your counter argument. I am taking a very broad view of the issue and pointing out that our entire market economy and socio-cultural matrix is geared for maximum science and whatnot productivity with such issues as ethics and consequences being more of a distant afterthought than a cutting edge factor.

Obviously I think I am correct in that and could hold up the entertainment industry as an example of an entire discipline that places ethics on the back burner as a general factor in favor of maximum profit regardless of the consequences to society as a whole. Equally one could hold up Halliburton as the cutting edge example today in regards to zero ethics in industry.

These are not the one or two bad apples that spoil the entire batch of good, rather these are the leaders in communities that admire ruthlessness and worship of the bottom line regardless of consequences.

My problem with your counter argument is that you seem [and I may be way off base here] to be asserting some sort of active do-gooder oversight process in various fields of human behavior that I am not detecting whatsoever as a practical and effective entity. Lip service, yes. Plenty of people and even some organizations talk plenty about ethics but it's seldom if ever more than mere lip service as far as the big picture goes.

So I'm hazarding the suggestion that you are taking a closer look at things than I am and picking out specific instances whereas I am pointing to over all patterns. That's my supposition in any event.

Thanks for the reply.

I should have been more succinct: I think good science and good ethics are 100% harmonized. The truth is the truth, and the people who feel that we should be repressing research (or art or speech) usually have something other than the total truth in their sights.

Hi,

Taking a little break here so trying to be as brief as possible. Werther was pretty far back timewise, but he did impact directly research and attitudes towards comics. Part of that I think is because so little research was done on comics at the time he published, that his studies were used by researchers. His stuff is still being cited. It would be nice to have review boards, look at research and rate it by today's standards as hopelessly flawed, and that rating is next to the article.

I know that the web has been trying out a standard of ranked by reliability tags. I just don't know how reliable that is. I have also looked at peer-reviewed and wonder how relevant peer-reviewed papers regarding comics are. Are the peers into comics?

The state of bookstores and libraries is stone age behind in cataloging and accurately displaying their Graphic Novels, Comic Novels for general retrieval.

I am putting comics in my tag so that I can find this again.