What do you think?
Rate this book
Science and Ethics
Bernard Rollin historically and conceptually examines the ideology that denies the relevance of ethics to science. Providing an introduction to basic ethical concepts, he discusses a variety of ethical issues relevant to science and how they are ignored, to the detriment of both science and society. These issues include research on human subjects, animal research, genetic engineering, biotechnology, cloning, xenotransplantation, and stem cell research. Rollin also explores the ideological agnosticism that scientists have displayed regarding subjective experience in humans and animals, and its pernicious effect on pain management.
306 pages, Paperback
First published March 27, 2006
5 people are currently reading
41 people want to read
About the author
Bernard E. Rollin
39 books16 followersProfessor Bernard E. Rollin is University Distinguished Professor, Professor of Philosophy, Professor of Biomedical Sciences, Professor of Animal Sciences and University Bioethicist at Colorado State University. His scholarly interests include both traditional philosophy and applied philosophy and much of his research is focused on animal welfare. He has been a valued member of the Voiceless Scientific Expert Advisory Council since 2009.
Bernard has a Bachelor’s Degree from the City College of New York and a PhD from Columbia. He is the author of over 400 papers and fourteen books including Science and Ethics and Animal Rights and Human Morality which won an Outstanding Book of the Year Award from the American Association of University Libraries. He has consulted for the US Department of Agriculture and for a number of multinational corporations including United Airlines, PETCO, DuPont and the US Soybean Association on a variety of agricultural and animal welfare issues. He served on the Pew National Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production (PCIFAP) and on the Institute for Laboratory Animal Resources (ILAR) Council of the National Academy of Sciences. In 2008, he mediated a historic agreement between the Humane Society of the U.S. and Colorado agriculture resulting in legislation advancing the welfare of farm animals.
Rollin was named to the Distinguished Faculty Gallery by the College of Veterinary Medicine at CSU in 1992. He has twice been awarded the Brownlee Award for outstanding achievement in Animal Welfare Science by the Animal Welfare Foundation of Canada and is a recipient of the Distinguished Service Award from the Colorado Veterinary Medical Association. In 2005, he was awarded the Henry Spira Award in Animal Welfare by Johns Hopkins University Centre for Alternatives to Animal Testing and received the Humane Award from the American Veterinary Medical Association in 2007.
He recently contributed to the documentary film The Superior Human? which challenges the Cartesian duality which hierarchically divides humans from other animals.
Bernard has a Bachelor’s Degree from the City College of New York and a PhD from Columbia. He is the author of over 400 papers and fourteen books including Science and Ethics and Animal Rights and Human Morality which won an Outstanding Book of the Year Award from the American Association of University Libraries. He has consulted for the US Department of Agriculture and for a number of multinational corporations including United Airlines, PETCO, DuPont and the US Soybean Association on a variety of agricultural and animal welfare issues. He served on the Pew National Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production (PCIFAP) and on the Institute for Laboratory Animal Resources (ILAR) Council of the National Academy of Sciences. In 2008, he mediated a historic agreement between the Humane Society of the U.S. and Colorado agriculture resulting in legislation advancing the welfare of farm animals.
Rollin was named to the Distinguished Faculty Gallery by the College of Veterinary Medicine at CSU in 1992. He has twice been awarded the Brownlee Award for outstanding achievement in Animal Welfare Science by the Animal Welfare Foundation of Canada and is a recipient of the Distinguished Service Award from the Colorado Veterinary Medical Association. In 2005, he was awarded the Henry Spira Award in Animal Welfare by Johns Hopkins University Centre for Alternatives to Animal Testing and received the Humane Award from the American Veterinary Medical Association in 2007.
He recently contributed to the documentary film The Superior Human? which challenges the Cartesian duality which hierarchically divides humans from other animals.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
August 5, 2015
In the first Bernard Rollin book I read, Putting the Horse before Descartes, the author showed himself to be a champion for the humane treatment of animals, as well as a champion in using a philosophical education to move people and to change institutions. I read Science and Ethics because I wanted a more theoretical understanding of Rollin’s views and of his ideas on philosophy’s role in society. I was not disappointed. As someone who has taught introductions to philosophy, I found a fresh and idiosyncratic approach, which was inspiring while being both down-to-earth and rigorous.
Much of the book is taken up with criticizing the “ideology” of science, the unjustified assumptions which distort the practice of science, such as that science is “value-free,” or that science investigates only “objective” phenomena. These topics are fascinating and important, but I was more interested in how Rollin regards ethics, so I concentrated on his chapter, “What is Ethics?”
Rollin describes two kinds of ethics, ethics1 and ethics2, or we might say morals and ethics. The first kind, ethics1 (or morals) are the rules which we have been taught to live by and which we have tacitly accepted as the way to make society work. Don’t lie, don’t cheat, don’t steal, etc. are necessary rules if we are to communicate or to work with each other. These are embodied, more or less, in our laws, although at the boundaries we may argue about what makes a good law. Rollin argues that ethics1 is objective, not subjective, in the sense that it is acknowledged by all societal observers. If you rob a bank, it is no defense to say, “In my subjective opinion that is not wrong.”
Ethics2 (the classroom variety of ethics) is the discussion of the justification and consistency of ethics1. We can argue that some ethical rule is inconsistent with other rules we hold, or that a given rule does not serve the interests of society well. There are classic methods for justifying rules, teleological approaches such as utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number, and deontological approaches such as liberal egalitarianism, equal treatment under the law. But in any event, the rules of ethics1 are what already exist in society, and we can criticize them or change them with ethics2.
What seems like a fresh approach to me is to think of ethics (ethics1 or morals) as a phenomenon of our culture which already exists and can be described almost as an anthropologist might see it, rather than as an abstraction which has a claim on us from outside of the everyday world. Ethics2 then becomes the criticism and improvement of that feature of our culture. The distinction reminds me of a similar distinction made by P.F. Strawson between descriptive ontology and revisionary ontology. Descriptive ontology describes what people actually think are in the world (material objects, persons, numbers, etc.), while revisionary ontology tries to improve on the way we think of these things. One is a descriptive activity and the other is an explanatory activity.
Rollin goes back to Plato as the first precedent for examining how we are to lead our lives. Every rule may be criticized, and the strength of a rule is whether it can withstand the criticisms made of it, whether it is consistent with the other things we believe, and whether its practice can be part of a functioning society. But even as we examine and criticize the rules, we also take them for granted and respect them, as Socrates accepted the judgment of Athens.
Rollin’s insight in using ethics to fight for the welfare of animals is to use “ethical judo” instead of “ethical sumo.” Instead of directly opposing his adversaries, he starts out by understanding the ethical rules by which his adversaries are guided. For farmers or veterinarians or anyone who works with animals, there is usually some caring about animals. He can then appeal to the ethical commitments of his interlocutors to argue against practices which gratuitously cause pain or suffering to animals. He likens this to the Socratic method of “reminding” the listener of what he already knows, rather than of imparting or imposing new knowledge. However he does it, Bernard Rollin can often be a modern-day Socrates.
Much of the book is taken up with criticizing the “ideology” of science, the unjustified assumptions which distort the practice of science, such as that science is “value-free,” or that science investigates only “objective” phenomena. These topics are fascinating and important, but I was more interested in how Rollin regards ethics, so I concentrated on his chapter, “What is Ethics?”
Rollin describes two kinds of ethics, ethics1 and ethics2, or we might say morals and ethics. The first kind, ethics1 (or morals) are the rules which we have been taught to live by and which we have tacitly accepted as the way to make society work. Don’t lie, don’t cheat, don’t steal, etc. are necessary rules if we are to communicate or to work with each other. These are embodied, more or less, in our laws, although at the boundaries we may argue about what makes a good law. Rollin argues that ethics1 is objective, not subjective, in the sense that it is acknowledged by all societal observers. If you rob a bank, it is no defense to say, “In my subjective opinion that is not wrong.”
Ethics2 (the classroom variety of ethics) is the discussion of the justification and consistency of ethics1. We can argue that some ethical rule is inconsistent with other rules we hold, or that a given rule does not serve the interests of society well. There are classic methods for justifying rules, teleological approaches such as utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number, and deontological approaches such as liberal egalitarianism, equal treatment under the law. But in any event, the rules of ethics1 are what already exist in society, and we can criticize them or change them with ethics2.
What seems like a fresh approach to me is to think of ethics (ethics1 or morals) as a phenomenon of our culture which already exists and can be described almost as an anthropologist might see it, rather than as an abstraction which has a claim on us from outside of the everyday world. Ethics2 then becomes the criticism and improvement of that feature of our culture. The distinction reminds me of a similar distinction made by P.F. Strawson between descriptive ontology and revisionary ontology. Descriptive ontology describes what people actually think are in the world (material objects, persons, numbers, etc.), while revisionary ontology tries to improve on the way we think of these things. One is a descriptive activity and the other is an explanatory activity.
Rollin goes back to Plato as the first precedent for examining how we are to lead our lives. Every rule may be criticized, and the strength of a rule is whether it can withstand the criticisms made of it, whether it is consistent with the other things we believe, and whether its practice can be part of a functioning society. But even as we examine and criticize the rules, we also take them for granted and respect them, as Socrates accepted the judgment of Athens.
Rollin’s insight in using ethics to fight for the welfare of animals is to use “ethical judo” instead of “ethical sumo.” Instead of directly opposing his adversaries, he starts out by understanding the ethical rules by which his adversaries are guided. For farmers or veterinarians or anyone who works with animals, there is usually some caring about animals. He can then appeal to the ethical commitments of his interlocutors to argue against practices which gratuitously cause pain or suffering to animals. He likens this to the Socratic method of “reminding” the listener of what he already knows, rather than of imparting or imposing new knowledge. However he does it, Bernard Rollin can often be a modern-day Socrates.
July 25, 2022
This was part of my core reading list for year 3. It's a brilliant book, I've learned so much about the difference between Ethics 1 and 2 and why questioning the first should be mandatory.
It has some very interesting stories of bad decisions along the years and they serve as examples going forward.
It has some very interesting stories of bad decisions along the years and they serve as examples going forward.
December 13, 2017
Love, so much good discussion
June 18, 2014
I enjoyed this book. Rollin details ethical conundrums within the scientific community over the past few decades. This was a very enjoyable read. I admit, a few chapters seemed to drag on but he always managed to pull my interest back. I highly recommend this book for anyone studying any particular science field (and non scientists too I suppose).
July 4, 2012
Enjoyed Rollins' matter-of-fact approach to the issues we encounter in discussing science and the studies scientists engage in. Rollins clearly points out that science is NOT ethics-free and completely objective. For anyone interested in tackling complex issues, this is a thought-provoking read.
Read
May 31, 2011Click here to find it in the catalogue.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews