"The consequences of smoking" - The main symptom is shortness of breath. In men, the risk is 4 times higher than in women. Composition of tobacco smoke. Lip cancer. Obliterating endarteritis - damage to the blood vessels of the lower extremities. Lungs of a smoker. Lungs of a non-smoker. Thrombosis of cerebral vessels is the most common cause of stroke. Then comes the so-called intermittent claudication, which occurs due to insufficient blood supply.

"Liability of the parties to the employment contract" - Liability - independent view legal responsibility. Types of liability. Topic: Liability of the parties to the employment contract. If the amount of recovery does not exceed the average earnings for 1 month. Voluntary upon application or written commitment. The procedure for compensation for damage caused to the employer.

"Criminal liability of minors" - the corpus delicti - a set of features specified in the criminal law, which characterizes a specific socially dangerous act as a crime. Depending on the nature of the degree of public danger, criminal acts are divided into: minor crimes (punishment does not exceed 2 years in prison); medium-gravity crimes (punishment does not exceed 5 years in prison); serious crimes (punishment does not exceed 10 years in prison); especially grave crimes (punishment - more than 10 years of imprisonment or more severe punishment).

"Rights and responsibilities of military personnel" - Disciplinary responsibility (except for officers). Right to damages. Cash allowance. Freedom of conscience and religion. The right to health care and medical care. Freedom of speech. Rights and responsibilities of military personnel. The right to participate in meetings, rallies, demonstrations, processions, picketing.

"Parental Responsibility" - The situation with the consumption of tobacco products, alcoholic beverages and toxic substances by this category of citizens is also alarming. In 2006, the internal affairs bodies of the Novgorod region identified 1,137 minors who allowed the consumption of alcoholic beverages. In the family, the child learns the most fundamental values, norms of behavior.

"Administrative and criminal liability" - Correctional works. The term for the application of compulsory measures of educational influence. This list is not exhaustive. Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) dated 06/13/1996 N 63-FZ, additions and changes in 2003, 2009 Federal Law of December 27, 2009 N 377-FZ). The content of compulsory measures of educational influence (Article 91).

Abstract - Responsibility of scientists for the fate of the world

SSU, 2010, 13 pages
Discipline - KSE

Social responsibility of scientists

Introduction

Typical for the modern era, the situation of emerging crises, the consequences of which affect the fate of large masses of the population and sometimes represent dangers of a truly global nature, impose a special responsibility on science as a force involved in the emergence of such situations, and on the creators of this science, i.e. on scientists.

Accusations against science, and, consequently, scientists, are often heard, and this is natural. After all, a significant part of crises arise as a result of the use of modern technology in the economy based on it.

Features of the scientific and technological revolution could not but influence the formulation of ethical problems modern natural science, in particular, on the attitude of scientists to the problem of responsibility. Both the formulation and the solution of the problem of the natural scientist's responsibility are directly dependent on the more general problem of the relationship between science, morality and ethics.

The problem of scientist's responsibility

The problem of the scientist's responsibility to society has long attracted much attention. It is complex and diverse, it consists of a considerable number of factors, and is closely intertwined with the broader problem of the ethical aspects of science, which we will not touch on here.

A scientist in his activity naturally bears responsibility, so to speak, of a universal nature. He is responsible for the usefulness of the scientific “product” he develops: he is expected to be impeccably exacting in the reliability of the material, correctness in using the work of his fellows, rigor of analysis and solid validity of the conclusions drawn. These are elementary, self-evident aspects of the scientist's responsibility, so to speak, his personal ethics.

The responsibility of a scientist becomes much broader when the question arises of the forms and results of using his works through technology and economics. It is naive to think that the actions and behavior of an individual scientist will affect the emergence or course of this or that crisis. We are talking here about something else - about the voice of the community of scientists, about their professional position.

The last decades have been marked by the extraordinary development of neurobiology, within which new directions have emerged and are successfully developing, studying the structure and functions of the central nervous system person. The results of these studies, both of genuine scientific value and representing hasty, unfounded or clearly falsified "sensations" conceal the danger of their inhumane use not for the purpose of curing mental disorders, but as a means of "behavior modification". The rapid development of chemistry and pharmacology over the past decades has enriched medicine with a large number of new active drugs that affect the human psyche and behavior. Advances in neurosurgery have made it possible to perform subtle and complex brain surgeries. All these achievements of scientific and technological progress and the natural desire of scientists to penetrate the secrets of the human brain have put forward a number of important moral, ethical and legal problems.

The problem of the responsibility of a scientist arises with great clarity and distinctness when he is faced with a dilemma "for" or "against", as was the case, for example, in medicine at the beginning of the 20th century, with the epoch-making discovery by Ehrlich of his first radical remedy against syphilis - the drug " 606".

Medical science, and practice along with it, was governed in those days by the principle of "first do no harm", and even now it appears in the "Hippocratic oath". Ehrlich put forward and courageously defended another principle: "first of all, be useful." These principles are directly addressed to the responsibility, to the conscience of the scientist. It is clear that they go far beyond the framework of medical science alone and have the broadest general meaning. Such problems arise repeatedly, and there is no absolute recipe. Every time, scientists must weigh the pros and cons and take responsibility for how to act.

In the case of Erlich, the responsibility of the scientist was unusually high, one might say gigantic. On one side of the scales was a terrible disease, which has a colossal distribution everywhere. On the other bowl - promising, but not fully explored remedy with the danger of secondary, perhaps severe side effects. But confidence in one's rightness, in the reliability of checks contributed to the fact that the principle of "benefit first" triumphed. Despite the risk of some supposedly possible harm, a severe, truly global disease has been defeated.

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF SCIENTISTS

What should be the social responsibility of scientists? Unlike professional, the social responsibility of scientists is realized in the relationship between science and society. Therefore, it can be characterized as an external (sometimes called social) ethics of science. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that in real life scientists problems of internal and external ethics of science, professional and social responsibility scientists are closely intertwined. Interest in the problems of social responsibility of scientists, of course, did not arise today, however, in the last 20-25 years, this area of ​​scientific study has appeared in a completely new light. And today, when the social functions of science are rapidly multiplying and diversifying, when the number of channels connecting science with the life of society is constantly increasing, the discussion of the ethical problems of science remains one of the important ways to identify its changing social and value characteristics.

M. Born, speaking about this in his memoirs, noted that “real science and its ethics have undergone changes that make it impossible to preserve the old ideal of serving knowledge for its own sake, the ideal that my generation believed in. We were convinced that this could never turn into evil, since the search for truth is good in itself. It was a beautiful dream from which we were awakened by the events of the world.” Here we mean, first of all, American nuclear explosions over Japanese cities. An important role in drawing public attention to the consequences of the application of scientific and technological achievements was played by the environmental movement, which has been acutely manifested since the beginning of the 60s. At this time, concern is awakening in the public mind in connection with the growing pollution of the environment and the depletion of the natural resources of the planet, the general aggravation of global problems. It was the social responsibility of scientists that was the initial impulse that made them, and then public opinion, realize the seriousness of the situation that threatens the future of mankind. In contrast to the previous example, in this case, the responsible attitude of scientists has already declared itself even before the state of affairs - if considered as a whole - became irreparable. In addition, if in the first case representatives of only some areas of physics were directly involved in the tragic development of events, then the ecological movement turned out to be essentially general scientific, affecting representatives of various fields of knowledge. The social responsibility of scientists, as we see, turns out to be one of the factors determining the trends in the development of science, individual disciplines and research areas.

One more fact. In the 1970s, the results and prospects of biomedical and genetic research caused a wide resonance. The culminating moment was the call of a group of molecular biologists and geneticists led by P. Berg (USA) to declare a voluntary moratorium (ban) on such experiments in the field of genetic engineering, which may pose a potential danger to the genetic constitution of living organisms. The bottom line is that recombinant (hybrid) DNA molecules created in the laboratory that can integrate into the genes of any organism and begin to act can give rise to completely unprecedented and, possibly, potentially dangerous for existing species life forms. In the ensuing discussions, ethical norms and regulations that could have an impact both on the general direction and on the research process itself became the subject of discussion.

The announcement of the moratorium was an unprecedented event for science: for the first time, scientists on their own initiative decided to suspend research that promised them tremendous success. After the moratorium was announced, leading scientists in this field developed a system of precautionary measures to ensure the safe conduct of research. This example is significant in the sense that scientists, in appealing to colleagues and to public opinion, for the first time tried to attract attention not by promising the benefits that can be expected from this area of ​​​​scientific research, but by warning about possible dangers. And this means that the manifestation of a sense of social responsibility, concern is not only socially acceptable, but also socially recognized and, moreover, socially stimulated form of behavior of scientists. Subsequently, it turned out that the potential dangers of the experiments as a whole were exaggerated. However, this was not at all obvious when the moratorium proposal was put forward. And the knowledge about the safety of some experiments and the dangers of others, which science now has, themselves were the result of scientific research carried out precisely as a result of the moratorium. Thanks to the moratorium, new scientific data, new knowledge, new methods of experimentation were obtained, which made it possible to divide experiments into classes according to the degree of their potential danger, as well as to develop methods for obtaining attenuated viruses that can only exist in the artificial environment of the laboratory. Thus, we see that the social responsibility of scientists is not something external, some appendage, unnaturally associated with scientific activity. On the contrary, it is an organic component of scientific activity that quite noticeably influences the problems and directions of research.

We can see that the problems of social responsibility of scientists are not only concretized, but also universalized in a certain sense - they arise in various areas of scientific knowledge. Thus, it can hardly be considered that any field of science is in principle and for all time guaranteed against encountering these far from simple problems. In one respect, the scientist cannot be held responsible for the consequences of his research, since in most cases it is not he who makes the crucial decision about how to put his discovery into practice. Other scientists, representing the wing of applied knowledge and working directly to order, can use the laws formulated by him to create specific devices and devices that can create problems for humanity. As for the mass application of open laws in practice, this is entirely on the conscience of businessmen and politicians - governments, presidents, military men. On the other hand, a scientist is not a puppet, but a person with a clear mind and a solid memory, so he cannot but be aware of his own contribution to the manufacture of certain objects and systems that are dangerous to people. Quite often, scientists simply work in the military or intelligence agencies, carry out specific orders, knowing full well that their "physics" and "mathematics" serve quite clear purposes. A nuclear bomb, a neutron bomb, chemical and biological weapons cannot appear without years of research, and one would hardly think that the scientists involved in such developments do not understand what they are doing. Moreover, these can be major theoretical scientists, and not just highly specialized “applied scientists”. “What physics!”, “Like a thousand suns!” - these are the phrases with which the creators of the atomic bomb met the explosions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is hardly possible to say that they stood on a moral position. Rather, it is a daring desire to stand above good and evil, to admire the beauty of man-made power without taking into account the suffering and death of thousands and thousands of innocent victims. Undoubtedly, the share of responsibility for what is happening in engineering, technology, medicine and other practical areas falls on the shoulders of the scientist. The famous modern Austrian philosopher Paul Feyerabend proposed the idea of ​​separating science from the state in order to free it from the influence of ideology and politics. The idea is good, but in modern conditions it is utopian, since states have their own interests, for the implementation of which scientists are involved. Governments generously fund military projects aimed at creating ever more sophisticated means of mass destruction of people, and ideologists inspire scientists that these projects are necessary to protect national interests. Politicians and the military do not ask the creators of a formidable weapon where and when to use it. Aren't scientists morally responsible for the ruinous arms race? Many valuable scientific knowledge is classified, espionage systems are created around secrets, which involve not only intelligence officers, but also scientists. There is also the issue of moral responsibility. Often, national interests cover up an ill-conceived, and sometimes even predatory attitude towards nature, its riches, which leads to a deterioration of the human environment, gives rise to acute environmental problems. Representatives of science and technology often follow the lead of narrow-minded politicians and unreasonable business executives who live one day at a time. Environmental problems are at the same time moral problems, since our future depends on their understanding and solution. Scientists are now required to have a good knowledge of environmental ethics and strict adherence to its norms in their work. It is no coincidence that universities have begun to train ecologists; for some specialties, curricula provide for the study of courses in environmental ethics.

The development of science and technology is one of the objective patterns in the development of society. It is necessary to humanize this process as much as possible, to turn it towards the person. Good and evil come not from science and technology, but from society and man. No machines, including modern robots, can be programmed with any moral principles, for example, a sense of conscience. One of the creators of cybernetics, Norbert Wiener, in his book "Man and Robot", paraphrasing a well-known biblical expression, writes: "For a man - human, and for a computer - machine." Based on his knowledge and experience, he was deeply convinced that the machine will always remain a tool in the hands of man. It is impossible to put moral qualities into it, since the nature of morality goes far beyond the properties and laws of the objective world, on the basis of which all machines are created. Whether such a machine will be used for good or for evil to a person depends on the people who use it for their own purposes, on their moral attitudes. Of course, the problems of the morality of science are especially acute for scientists working in applied fields. A striking example is the heated discussions that unfolded around the topic of animal and human cloning (which was discussed above). So, on the one hand, cloning can be used for the special cultivation of those organs that are absent from people due to an accident or severely damaged by disease. In this case, cloning is a blessing, it is humane, because it helps to prolong and make human life healthy. However, on the other hand, cloning can actually be used to create a breed of "second-class" people, human slaves, numerous twins, created in a conveyor way with given qualities. This would be a truly moral drama for humanity. And meanwhile, despite all the decisions and prohibitions, research and experiments continue, and science fiction books begin to emerge into life Dr. Moreau HG Wells, engineer Garin from A. Tolstoy's "Hyperboloid of engineer Garin" and other creepy characters-scientists who want to "surprise world of villainy." Many moral issues arise when deciding on organ transplantation. Suppose science is able to put the brain of one person into the body of another in order to save at least one of the dead. But what does it look like from a moral point of view? What will the consciousness wake up in someone else's body feel? How will relatives react to a new creature, which has the body of one person, and the memory of another? However, even if one does not resort to such imaginary plots, one can see that the ability of scientific medicine to transplant organs raises the question of the fairness of the distribution of scarce resources for transplantation, it asks whether it is possible to have abortions in order to then use embryonic tissues? Many such questions can be asked. It is important that humanities scientists bear moral responsibility for their own discoveries and insights, theories and concepts no less than physicists who create bombs and biologists who grow plague in laboratories. The closest example here can be psychologists, who, unlike philosophers, claim the status of full-fledged scientists. Practical use psychological theories in psychotherapy, their use in pedagogical work- has a very powerful effect on people who become objects of application of the theory or enter into a dialogue with the therapist based on certain “conceptual rules”. The psychotherapist, relying on the idea that "in the unconscious we are all envious and haters," can easily traumatize the patient, attributing to him non-existent vices. In turn, a theory built on the idea of ​​“self-love” very easily degenerates into the preaching of selfishness and the forced “egoization” of the personal life of a gullible listener. A person who combines theorist and practice must himself be highly moral and sensitive in order to fulfill the most important medical principle “Do no harm!”. There is a big difference between reasoning in the silence of an office and contact with real human destinies. Scientists such as historians bear no less responsibility. It is they who form our collective memory, and the nature of the interpretation and reinterpretation of facts depends on their usual decency. The creation of new interpretations of past history is a matter of honesty and conscience for everyone who undertakes this. It is very important for them not to go on about emotions and ambitions, not to indulge in fashion, but, as it should be in science, to seek the truth: what really happened? The spread of opportunistically created new versions of history entails chaos and disorientation in the mass consciousness, it can contribute to inflating social and ethnic contradictions, conflict between generations. But what about fundamental research? What is the responsibility of scientists to society? The results and applications of fundamental research are very often unpredictable. Nevertheless, it can be assumed with a high degree of confidence that the results of today's fundamental research will quickly find a wide variety of applications, and these applications, most likely, will not necessarily be devoid of negative aspects. And although scientists may not know what the practical consequences of this or that discovery will be, they know only too well that “knowledge is power”, and moreover, not always good, and therefore they should strive to foresee what that will bring to humanity and society. or other opening

Conclusion

There is no doubt that in the event of global problems and crises, scientists will have to turn to their conscience more than once, to invoke a sense of responsibility in order to find the right way to overcome emerging threats. And, of course, it is a matter of the public conscience of scientists of the world, of a common responsibility - to fight in every possible way with the causes that cause harmful, destructive consequences, to direct scientific searches to correct the harm that the spider itself, without weighing and not taking into account possible consequences, could bring and thus be involved in the emergence of certain global problems. And nothing more than capitulation should be considered a peculiar form of reaction that has recently occurred to the difficult decisions that arise before the conscience of a scientist, which finds expression in the promotion of the slogans of "counter-science" and "counter-culture" with a call to suspend the forward movement of scientific research.

Currently, such broad forms are attracting more and more attention. social movement such as the International Federation of Scientists, their professional associations in individual countries, the emergence of organizations with a clearly defined special purpose, such as the British Association for the Social Responsibility of Scientists (BSSRS), etc. In the development of this movement, we see an important form of manifestation by scientists of their responsibility in periods characterized by particularly broad, reaching global scale problems affecting various aspects of modern society.

List of used literature

1. Baev A.A. Human genome: some ethical and legal problems of the present and future // Man, 1995. - No. 2. - p.5-8.
2. Dawkins R. The Selfish Gene. - M.: Mir, 1993.
3. Karpenkov S.Kh. The concept of modern natural science: A textbook for universities. - M.: Culture and sport, UNITI, 1997. - 520p.
4. Kutyrev V.A. Knowing cannot be pardoned // Man, No. 1, 1993.
5. Lazar M.G. Ethics of science. - L.: LSU, 1985. - 125p.
6. Medyantseva M.P. Responsibility of a scientist as a social and ethical problem. - Kazan: KGU, 1973. - 174p.
7. Siluyanova I.V. Bioethics and ideological traditions // Man, No. 5, 1995.
8. Trubnikov N.K. A delusional mind? Variety of extra-scientific knowledge. - M.: Politizdat, 1990. - 464 p.
9. Chavkin S. Mind Thieves: Psychosurgery and Control over Brain Activity. - M.: Progress, 1982.

Essay
By discipline "Concepts of modern natural science"
On the topic of: "The problem of social responsibility of a scientist"

Performed:
2nd year student, group 526
Chaikovskaya Daria Dmitrievna
Checked:
assistant professor
Kirsanova Olga Timofeevna

Rostov-on-Don, 2010
Content:

1)Introduction…………………………………………………………………….. 3
2) Responsibility of scientists…………………………………………………... 3
3) Social responsibility of scientists……………………………………. 5
4) Conclusion…………………………………………………………………….13
5) List of used literature………………………………………14

Introduction

Typical for the modern era, the situation of emerging crises, the consequences of which affect the fate of large masses of the population and sometimes represent dangers of a truly global nature, impose a special responsibility on science as a force involved in the emergence of such situations, and on the creators of this science, i.e. on scientists.
Accusations against science, and, consequently, scientists, are often heard, and this is natural. After all, a significant part of the crises arise as a result of the use of modern technology in the economy based on it.
The features of the scientific and technological revolution could not but influence the formulation of the ethical problems of modern natural science, in particular, the attitude of scientists to the problem of responsibility. Both the formulation and the solution of the problem of the natural scientist's responsibility are directly dependent on the more general problem of the relationship between science, morality and ethics.
The problem of scientist's responsibility

The problem of the scientist's responsibility to society has long attracted much attention. It is complex and diverse, it consists of a considerable number of factors, and is closely intertwined with the broader problem of the ethical aspects of science, which we will not touch on here.
A scientist in his activity naturally bears responsibility, so to speak, of a universal nature. He is responsible for the usefulness of the scientific “product” he develops: he is expected to be impeccably exacting in the reliability of the material, correctness in using the work of his fellows, rigor of analysis and solid validity of the conclusions drawn. These are elementary, self-evident aspects of the scientist's responsibility, so to speak, his personal ethics.
The responsibility of a scientist becomes much broader when the question arises of the forms and results of using his works through technology and economics. It is naive to think that the actions and behavior of an individual scientist will affect the emergence or course of this or that crisis. We are talking here about something else - about the voice of the community of scientists, about their professional position.
The last decades have been marked by the extraordinary development of neurobiology, within which new directions have emerged and are successfully developing, studying the structure and functions of the human central nervous system. The results of these studies, both of genuine scientific value and representing hasty, unfounded or clearly falsified "sensations" conceal the danger of their inhumane use not for the purpose of curing mental disorders, but as a means of "behavior modification". The rapid development of chemistry and pharmacology over the past decades has enriched medicine with a large number of new active drugs that affect the human psyche and behavior. Advances in neurosurgery have made it possible to perform subtle and complex brain surgeries. All these achievements of scientific and technological progress and the natural desire of scientists to penetrate the secrets of the human brain have put forward a number of important moral, ethical and legal problems.
The problem of the responsibility of a scientist arises with great clarity and distinctness when he is faced with a dilemma "for" or "against", as was the case, for example, in medicine at the beginning of the 20th century, with the epoch-making discovery by Ehrlich of his first radical remedy against syphilis - the drug " 606".
Medical science, and practice along with it, was governed in those days by the principle of "first do no harm", and even now it appears in the "Hippocratic oath". Ehrlich put forward and courageously defended another principle: "first of all, be useful." These principles are directly addressed to the responsibility, to the conscience of the scientist. It is clear that they go far beyond the framework of medical science alone and have the broadest general meaning. Such problems arise repeatedly, and there is no absolute recipe. Every time, scientists must weigh the pros and cons and take responsibility for how to act.
In the case of Erlich, the responsibility of the scientist was unusually high, one might say gigantic. On one side of the scales was a terrible disease, which has a colossal distribution everywhere. On the other bowl - a promising, but not fully explored remedy with the danger of secondary, perhaps severe side effects. But confidence in one's rightness, in the reliability of checks contributed to the fact that the principle of "benefit first" triumphed. Despite the risk of some supposedly possible harm, a severe, truly global disease has been defeated.
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF SCIENTISTS
What should be the social responsibility of scientists? Unlike professional, the social responsibility of scientists is realized in the relationship between science and society. Therefore, it can be characterized as an external (sometimes called social) ethics of science. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that in the real life of scientists, the problems of internal and external ethics of science, professional and social responsibility of scientists are closely intertwined. Interest in the problems of social responsibility of scientists, of course, did not arise today, however, in the last 20-25 years, this area of ​​scientific study has appeared in a completely new light. And today, when the social functions of science are rapidly multiplying and diversifying, when the number of channels connecting science with the life of society is constantly increasing, the discussion of the ethical problems of science remains one of the important ways to identify its changing social and value characteristics.
M. Born, speaking about this in his memoirs, noted that “real science and its ethics have undergone changes that make it impossible to preserve the old ideal of serving knowledge for its own sake, the ideal that my generation believed in. We were convinced that this could never turn into evil, since the search for truth is good in itself. It was a beautiful dream from which we were awakened by the events of the world.” Here we mean, first of all, American nuclear explosions over Japanese cities. An important role in drawing public attention to the consequences of the application of scientific and technological achievements was played by the environmental movement, which has been acutely manifested since the beginning of the 60s. At this time, concern is awakening in the public mind in connection with the growing pollution of the environment and the depletion of the natural resources of the planet, the general aggravation of global problems. It was the social responsibility of scientists that was the initial impulse that made them, and then public opinion, realize the seriousness of the situation that threatens the future of mankind. In contrast to the previous example, in this case, the responsible attitude of scientists has already declared itself even before the state of affairs - if considered as a whole - became irreparable. In addition, if in the first case, representatives of only some areas of physics were directly involved in the tragic development of events, then the ecological movement turned out to be essentially general scientific, affecting representatives of various fields of knowledge. The social responsibility of scientists, as we see, turns out to be one of the factors determining the trends in the development of science, individual disciplines and research areas.
One more fact. In the 1970s, the results and prospects of biomedical and genetic research caused a wide resonance. The culminating moment was the call of a group of molecular biologists and geneticists led by P. Berg (USA) to declare a voluntary moratorium (ban) on such experiments in the field of genetic engineering, which may pose a potential danger to the genetic constitution of living organisms. The bottom line is that recombinant (hybrid) DNA molecules created in the laboratory that can integrate into the genes of any organism and begin to act can give rise to completely unprecedented and, possibly, potentially dangerous life forms for existing species. In the ensuing discussions, ethical norms and regulations that could have an impact both on the general direction and on the research process itself became the subject of discussion.
The announcement of the moratorium was an unprecedented event for science: for the first time, scientists on their own initiative decided to suspend research that promised them tremendous success. After the moratorium was announced, leading scientists in this field developed a system of precautionary measures to ensure the safe conduct of research. This example is significant in the sense that scientists, in appealing to colleagues and to public opinion, for the first time tried to attract attention not by promising the benefits that can be expected from this area of ​​​​scientific research, but by warning about possible dangers. And this means that the manifestation of a sense of social responsibility, concern is not only socially acceptable, but also socially recognized and, moreover, socially stimulated form of behavior of scientists. Subsequently, it turned out that the potential dangers of the experiments as a whole were exaggerated. However, this was not at all obvious when the moratorium proposal was put forward. And the knowledge about the safety of some experiments and the dangers of others, which science now has, themselves were the result of scientific research carried out precisely as a result of the moratorium. Thanks to the moratorium, new scientific data, new knowledge, new methods of experimentation were obtained, which made it possible to divide experiments into classes according to the degree of their potential danger, as well as to develop methods for obtaining attenuated viruses that can only exist in the artificial environment of the laboratory. Thus, we see that the social responsibility of scientists is not something external, some appendage, unnaturally associated with scientific activity. On the contrary, it is an organic component of scientific activity that quite noticeably influences the problems and directions of research.
We can see that the problems of social responsibility of scientists are not only concretized, but also universalized in a certain sense - they arise in various areas of scientific knowledge. Thus, it can hardly be considered that any field of science is in principle and for all time guaranteed against encountering these far from simple problems. In one respect, the scientist cannot be held responsible for the consequences of his research, since in most cases he does not
etc.................

1 of 16

Presentation on the topic: Ethics of science - the fate of great discoveries

slide number 1 https://ppt4web.ru/images/1344/36032/310/img1.jpg" alt=" Abstract Topic: "The ethics of science is the fate of great discoveries." Author: student 9 "B" class" title="AnnotationTopic: "Ethics of science - the fate of great discoveries."

Description of the slide:

Annotation Topic: "The ethics of science is the fate of great discoveries." Author: student of class 9 "B" Alex Popov Supervisor: chemistry teacher Shelukhanova Irina Nikolaevna Purpose of the work: to study the problem of the relationship between moral choice and social responsibility of a scientist. Tasks:1. Give an assessment of the scientific and social activities Fritz Haber and Nikolai Dmitrievich Zelinsky.2. Get acquainted with the moral position of scientists in relation to discoveries that threaten the survival of mankind.3. To draw attention to the problem of increasing social responsibility and the moral choice of a scientist. Hypothesis: first of all, moral criteria should play a major role in the life of a scientist. If humanity does not make a choice in favor of moral principles, then it will destroy itself. Methods: comparison analysis, induction, deduction, observation. The relevance of the work lies in the fact that the important issue of social responsibility of a scientist for his inventions is considered. Namely, the development of our technical civilization requires true professionals in their field. But, if we ignore their personal qualities, deny morality, then self-destruction is quite possible not only of the human person, but of the entire civilization. Ignoring psychology and moral education in the training of specialists leads to a continuous increase in the number and scale of man-made disasters. Practical orientation: the work can be used in the lessons of social science, history, chemistry, biology, as well as in extracurricular activities.

slide number 3

Description of the slide:

Each of the historical eras - from distant to closer to our time, gives birth to its own genius, the invention of which in some way changes the course of history. But isn't the first most successful discovery the "beginning of the end" in a long line of events? Is it possible to forbid a genius to invent? XX-XXI centuries - the apotheosis of human military ingenuity. Will this end? Will reason prevail? "We have done the devil's work." Robert Oppenheimer

slide number 4

Description of the slide:

Probably, at all times there was no person who would be so directly (or indirectly) responsible for the death of millions of people as Fritz Haber. He has been called "the father of German chemical weapons". "He suffocated thousands and saved millions from starvation." He's a genius, like you and me. And genius and villainy, Two things are incompatible. Is not it? "Mozart and Salieri" A.S. Pushkin

slide number 5

Description of the slide:

On April 22, 1915, German troops released about 180 tons of chlorine from cylinders in 5 minutes. On a 6 km wide front in the valley of the Ypres River, about 15 thousand people were hit, of which 5 thousand died immediately. The Anglo-French front was destroyed in this sector. The German command did not expect such a terrible effect and did not use the real chance of winning the battle.

slide number 6

Description of the slide:

It was Fritz Haber who created the infamous gas, "Zyklon B", originally developed as a pesticide, but then used as a means to "finally solve the Jewish question." In a trial against the manager of the Degesch firm that manufactured Zyklon B, it was estimated that 4 kilograms of Zyklon B was enough to kill 1,000 people.

slide number 7

Description of the slide:

For the first time for the mass extermination of people, "Cyclone B" was used in September 1941 in the Auschwitz extermination camp on the initiative of the first deputy camp commandant Karl Fritzsch to 600 Soviet prisoners of war and 250 other prisoners. The camp commandant, Rudolf Hoess, approved Fritzsch's initiative, and later it was in Auschwitz that this gas was used to kill people in gas chambers.

slide number 8

Description of the slide:

However, at the same time, Fritz Haber saved humanity from nitrogen starvation. He came up with a method for the synthesis of ammonia from hydrogen and atmospheric air. Haber's invention dramatically increased agricultural output throughout the world. Thanks to this discovery, Germany was able to continue the war, since she began to produce saltpeter from ammonia, which she had previously imported from Chile.

slide number 9

Description of the slide:

slide number 10

Description of the slide:

The foreseeing of the growing danger at the height of the First World War put N.D. Zelinsky, as a Russian patriot and an outstanding naturalist, before a fundamentally new task. But it had to be resolved very quickly. “Where to look for protection, an antidote?” the scientist asked himself. And here Nikolai Dmitrievich came to a saving decision: to find protection in Nature itself. This method of converting ordinary charcoal into activated carbon was the essence of N.D. Zelinsky's discovery, not to mention the very idea of ​​using coal in the fight against poisonous gases.

Description of the slide:

Academician P.L. Kapitsa refused to participate in the creation of the Soviet atomic bomb, for which in 1945 he was dismissed from the post of director of the Institute for Physical Problems of the USSR Academy of Sciences, which he had created, and was under house arrest for eight years. He was deprived of the opportunity to communicate with his colleagues from other research institutes. He studied physics at the dacha with his son S.P. Kapitsa.

slide number 13

Description of the slide:

After the explosions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a horrified Einstein sent a telegram to the largest businessmen banning the use of nuclear weapons. But it was already too late… “I don’t know what weapons the Third World War, but it is clear that the fourth is only with sticks and stones.” Albert Einstein

slide number 14

Description of the slide:

The Fukushima reactors were manufactured according to the designs of the General Electric Company. During their design in the 70s, a conflict arose among a group of American engineers: three engineers signed a memorandum stating that the reactor was designed incorrectly, technically illiterate and dangerous. General Electric ignored the dissenting opinion of the engineers, as a result of which the nuclear scientists resigned without signing the "Version 1b" drawing. And General Electric built a nuclear power plant in Japan according to a de facto emergency project.

slide number 15

Description of the slide:

People have produced and created so much that they can no longer cope with this wealth. At present, it is necessary to reduce the processes of creation, and switch to the processes of saving the planet Earth. And the increase in the personal responsibility of scientists for their actions and their immediate and possible future results becomes obvious. “Why should we hate each other? We are all one, carried away by the same planet, we are the crew of one ship. It’s good when something new, more perfect is born in a dispute between different civilizations, but it’s monstrous when they devour each other.” A. de Saint-Exupery

slide number 16

Description of the slide:

References1. "Educate a scientist" Zagorsky Vyacheslav Viktorovich - Education: researched in the world, 20032. Kulikov V.A. "The history of weapons and weapons of peoples and states from ancient times to the present day." - Ufa: Eastern University, 2003. - 764 p.3. Novikov V.P. "Weapons of the Third World War" / Ed. V.P. Salnikov. - St. Petersburg: Lan, 2001. - 356 p.4. Rastorguev S. "Formula of the information war.": - M.: White Alves, 2005. - 96 p.5. Ablesimov N.E. “A 154 Concepts of modern natural science: Uchebn. manual for seminars” / N.E. Ablesimov. - Khabarovsk: Publishing House of the Far East State University of Transportation, 2005. - 89 p.6. Antoine de Saint-Exupery "The Little Prince" - Moscow 1982 7. Website "Wikipedia"

Scientists are usually called people professionally engaged in scientific activities, "production" of scientific knowledge. Of course, not only scientists themselves are involved in the field of science. They are helped, they are served by laboratory assistants, administrators, engineers, etc. People of many professions are directly connected with this special type of production. Modern science cannot be imagined without scientific journals, almanacs, reference books, etc., which are edited, published, drawn up with drawings, diagrams, drawings. An important role in the development of modern science is played by the media, which popularize its achievements, cover scientific problems, etc. Nevertheless, the sphere of science cannot exist and develop without scientists.

From history, we know the names of wise men, talented scientists, obsessed with finding answers to difficult questions. Many of them were ready to give their lives for the truth. One can recall at least the fate of Socrates or Giordano Bruno.

Already in ancient Greece, the legendary Academy, the Athenian philosophical school, founded by the philosopher Plato in the grove of Akadem, was a recognized scientific center. Platop's students gathered here for conversations, debates, reading reports on various fields of knowledge. A library was also organized here - a repository of books and manuscripts.

Later, the word "academy" began to refer to associations of scientists. Science is not only a special system of knowledge, but also a system of organizations and institutions in which science is created. Gone are the days of lone scientists who, in the quiet of solitude, were busy searching for the “philosopher's stone”. Gradually, specialized scientific institutions arose. At first they were universities, then laboratories, institutes, academies, and later - scientific centers and even entire cities. Scientific institutions create next to them a whole infrastructure of libraries, museums, testing stations, botanical gardens, etc.

Data. Russian Academy Sciences was established by order of Emperor Peter I by Decree of the Governing Senate of January 28 (February 8), 1724. It was recreated by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of November 21, 1991 as the highest scientific institution in Russia. And now the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) includes 9 departments (by field of science) and 3 regional departments, as well as 14 regional research centers. In addition to the Russian Academy of Sciences in our country, there are other state academies, including the Academy of Medical Sciences, the Academy of Education, the Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Scientific research is carried out not only by scientists of the academy, but also by industry research institutes, as well as scientific teams of higher educational institutions. This is very important for the formation of specialists for future research, since scientists engaged in the search for nsting.1 pass on to their students not only knowledge, but also research skills and a desire for research.

Modern science goes beyond the boundaries of individual countries, and associations of scientists often include specialists in a certain field of knowledge from different countries. They communicate using modern means of communication, meet at international conferences, congresses, symposiums. Scientists who achieve outstanding results receive international awards. The most famous of them is the Nobel Prize.

Among our compatriots the Nobel Prize for scientific achievements awarded: Ivan Petrovich Pavlov, Ilya Ilyich Mechnikov, Nikolai Nikolaevich Semenov, Pavel Alekseevich Cherenkov, Ilya Mikhailovich Frank; Igor Evgenievich Gamm, Lev Davidovich Landau, Nikolai Gennadievich Basov, Alexander Mikhailovich Prokhorov, Andrey Dmitrievich Sakharov, Leonid Vitalievich Kantorovich, Pyotr Leonidovich Kapitsa, Zhores Ivanovich Alferov, Vitaly Lazarevich Ginzburg, Alexei Alekseevich Abrikosov.

Moral principles of the work of a scientist.

Real scientists are not just educated and talented people who have achieved success in scientific research. Most of them are people with high moral principles.

At all times, the community of scientists rejected plagiarism - the appropriation of other people's ideas. Scrupulous adherence to the truth, honesty to oneself and others distinguish real scientists. With regard to the honor of the name, most scientists are very demanding, they are not indifferent to how the truth is obtained.

One of the most important ethical problems that men of science face is the problem of the consequences of their work. On numerous occasions, well-known scientists have made public statements in connection with their concern that the achievements of the spiders could be used for inhumane purposes.

(work on the document for the lecture, see the appendix)

The growing role of modern science. The modern organization of scientific research differs markedly from that adopted in the 17th century. and even in the 20th century. Initially, science was limited to the function of searching for true knowledge, while philosophy helped to understand and explain the structure of the world as a whole. It took a lot of time for science to assert the right to form a worldview, to establish a kind of delimitation of influence with religion. today without scientific ideas the existence of a spiritual culture is impossible.

The industrial society demanded from science a closer connection with production, an orientation towards the development of technical ideas. In turn, science received from production a powerful impetus for development in the form of technical equipment. In fact, many scientific centers began to look for ways to bring their new achievements closer to direct production. The so-called technoparks have become a progressive form of cooperation between science and production.

Currently, more than 50 technology parks operate in 25 regions of the Russian Federation, 25-30% of them are stably functioning structures. The founders of Russian technoparks are universities, research centers, industrial enterprises, non-state firms, authorities, banks, public organizations. About 1,000 small innovative enterprises (that is, those focused on the introduction of new technologies) are located in Russian technoparks; there are about 150 small service enterprises; more than 10,000 new jobs created. Russian technoparks manufacture products and provide services to 24 industries and social sectors, including most often in the fields of science, scientific services, ecology, mechanical engineering, fuel, energy, informatics, healthcare and education.