Talk:Hippocratic Oath for scientists

Copyrighted text

The CorenSearchBot correctly notes that much of the text of this article is copied from another web page:

http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2007/09/hippocratic_oath_for_scientist.html

As the text is the seven principles of a code to be adopted by all scientists worldwide, it is logical to assume that this text will not have any copyright.

– confirmed. — madman bum and angel 18:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text is no longer predominantly copied from another page Tachyon502 (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC) —- Would it be interesting to link from here to the "Engineer's Creed"? Either http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ritual_of_the_Calling_of_an_Engineer, and/or http://www.engineering.ualberta.ca/news.cfm?story=58202. BeckyAn (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

or to here: http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.128.198.190 (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a better link would be here: http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html however all/most Professions have codes of ethics that are enforced through their Professional bodies and the rulings of which affect the membership necessary to practice. LookingGlass (talk) 08:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link Schmink. IMNSHO, the “professions” differ distinctly from the equally honorable “trades” in (at least) one crucial way: every pr’n or trade has principles that are breached only at the members deep peril. One frequently relevant distinction is a ‘’need’’ for deep clarity (not about precise details, but about hard-to-nail-down judgments that true professionals have to not simply follow, but to “cleave to”). The professions refine … ‘’’push’’’ the precision of … of ethical judgments further than the trades for two reasons: 1. The stakes ‘’tend’’ to be greater. 2. The technical judgments that are meaningfully feasible are (often) more precise, and more formally stated. (WiP/TbC’d) — ex-Jerzy, -JerzyA, etc.; addition TBC, hopably in the next 18 hrs. —13:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Hypocrisy?

Is there a way to expand this article so as to outline the "issues" that "scientists" see as setting them apart from those other members of society similarly empowered (the other Professions), and thereby, in some quasi-mystical manner, to elevate them above any enforceable requirement for ethical conduct? The deification of science achieved by virtue of being "understood" as being concerned only with the pursuit of "truth" is one. If it is the only one then it could have it's own section. The obvious "problem" is that doing so might foster some debate, but simply outlining the main reasoning for and against ethical conduct in science should be simple enought to summarise. LookingGlass (talk) 08:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hippcratic maths for mathematicians

Recently mathematicians have called for a Hippocratic oath for their field because of its growing impact on the world. I suggest adding a paragraph about it, for example:

Mathematics

In 2019 the British mathematician Hannah Fry argued in The Guardian that mathematicians and other tech specialists need a Hippocratic Oath to protect society from the potential harms coming from modern mathematical technologies: “We need a Hippocratic oath in the same way it exists for medicine. In medicine, you learn about ethics from day one. In mathematics, it’s a bolt-on at best. It has to be there from day one and at the forefront of your mind in every step you take." Hannah Fry's call for a Hippocratic oath stands in a longer history of mathematicians calling for such an oath.

The arguments in favour of a Hippocratic Oath in mathematics are similar to those of David King's "Universal Code for Scientists". However, scholars have argued that such an oath could be meaningless without the institutional and systemic support that the medical community has in its enforcement and the often ill-defined notion of harm in relation to mathematical work.

Potential references:

Call by Hannah Fry: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/aug/16/mathematicians-need-doctor-style-hippocratic-oath-says-academic-hannah-fry

Summary of mathematicians and adjacent fields calling for an oath: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-022-00389-y

Philosophical view about these calls: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11406-022-00588-8

Spanish reference on adjacent calls: https://arxiv.org/abs/1006.3527 Applebananasmoothie (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When you have a conflict of interest about the text or one of the citations you are proposing for the text, you are required to disclose it. This was explained on your user talk page in a message you chose to delete. MrOllie (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]