How should scientists and engineers respond to the concern over technology-driven threats? Although there are persuasive arguments for the proposition that they not engage in public policy debates or speculate about the possibility of social harm emanating from research and development, the author believes that they should possess the analytical techniques to evaluate (not judge) the societal impacts of technology. Technology impact studies should be incorporated into the research plans of major new initiatives, along with formal requirements to mitigate known negative societal impacts. Finally, scientists and engineers should undertake, on their own initiative, efforts to reduce the negative impacts of their work.
Reprinted with permission of Professional Ethics Report, Vol. XX, No. 4, Fall 2007, pp. 1-8.
Reprinted from: Professional Ethics Report, Fall 2007, Vol. XX, No. 4, pp. 1-8.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation Reprint series. The Reprint was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1992 to 2011 that represented previously published journal articles, book chapters, and reports with the permission of the publisher. RAND reprints were formally reviewed in accordance with the publisher's editorial policy and compliant with RAND's rigorous quality assurance standards for quality and objectivity. For select current RAND journal articles, see External Publications.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.