Do you agree and why? Is it permissible for scientists to become advocates in the areas of their research?
I agree that scientists have a responsibility to advocate for the ‘best possible applications’ of their research for the greater good. This pertains particularly to individuals whose work may have an ethically questionable downstream impact. My research is in neuroscience and machine learning, wherein real-time interfaces between an individual’s real-time brain activity and some visual/auditory/haptic representation of this are used as a highly efficient form of neurofeedback facilitating accelerated attention and emotion learning. There has been much interest from the military in using this technology for training more efficient and emotionally neutral combat soldiers. Thus, while one may have limited control over how their research is applied, it is our responsibility to advocate for the best possible applications in the political and social domains. As scientists, we have a unique position to highlight the good that can come from a particular line of research, identify important future research directions that represent this, as well as openly discuss potentially adverse outcomes or applications.
What steps can one take to balance advocacy with the objectivity that is considered the ideal in scientific inquiry?
It seems necessary that we need focus on facilitating the reciprocal exchange of information between scientists and the individuals who have the greatest impact politically, governmentally, finically, globally and within the media at large. Designing objective research studies that are in their essence strategic, and incorporate the specific aim to strengthen the exchange between policy makers and scientists is critical for disseminating research in a way that reaches the greatest number of individuals in a way that is framed from a politically and morally nuanced perspective. Scientists who engage in particularly controversial or highly political research should be openly forthcoming with values that may impact their reasoning while placing an emphasis on scientific objectivity and neutrality as much as possible. Furthermore, encouraging open source data sharing is another key way scientists can strengthen the legitimacy of their claims and methodological credibility.