[.cnI redruM]

While I will admit that there is a philosophical appeal to washing one's hands of the grubby strap-hangers and practicing science from a moral standpoint of altitude and distance, there is a point where rubber meets the road. The findings of scientists go through a process of data reduction similar to what happens when an empiricist actually measures something. That data has to be changed in form several times, before that data can be useful to the people fronting the $$ to acquire the information.

A scientists bears a personal moral responsibility for what happens to his data, with his name and prestige staked to it, once it gets published in a refereed journal. If the scientist turns a blind eye or doesn't deign to concern himself with what the lesser beings do with that scientific truth, that scientist is morally and professionally negligent.

I believe that the field of environmental science in particular, and much of science in general, has been overrun by people who intentionally and professionally misuse data to procure political and social propaganda. The scientist who watches that happen and then fails to throw the big red BS flag, has performed a regrettable error of omission.

[RightWhale]

If the scientist turns a blind eye or doesn't deign to concern himself with what the lesser beings do with that scientific truth, that scientist is morally and professionally negligent.

Good point. There is kind of an awakening to the utility of ethics these days. Scientists probably don't study much philosophy while they are getting their academic credentials and so don't become fully aware of their responsibilities until the real world intrudes. There has been some neglect there, and eventually neglect will demand payment.