Scientist's oath

From BBC News: the British government's chief scientific adviser proposes a code of scientific ethics that he hopes will encourage researchers to think about the impact their discoveries could have on society. He's suggested that all scientists ought to sign it in order to allay public fears/ doubts/ etc. about research and so research can be trusted.

The article gives a brief summary of the seven main points of the oath, all of which I categorize as dealing with either integrity (i.e. don't fudge your research, don't take money from people who have a vested interest in your findings, &c) or responsibility (consider environmental/ social impact of your work)... and at this point I can't see how signing on to uphold these values would be a bad thing for anybody.

The most important part of the oath is the commitment to reflecting on the social impact of scientific research. We are still untangling the ways that our various technologies have affected the way we eat, sleep, live, work, even think; it should absolutely be required of all researchers that, before any new product is made or decision implemented based on their findings, they sit down to thoughtfully and candidly (trans., "sans bullshit") consider how their discovery will change our culture. We've labored for years under the assumption that all progress and innovation are good, without stopping to examine how we define "progress," and in the wake of that the looming global oil crisis is but the most immediately visible result of our failure as a society to ask these difficult questions. Recent articles on Engadget and Slashdot about RFID tags are starting to raise some of these questions as well; can we, in good conscience, make medicine prescriptions and passports digital when doing so also makes them vulnerable to hacking? How widespread might this problem become? Is this outcome better or worse than the problems the system seeks to correct?

Consider this part of an ongoing series concerning the Fall of the American Empire - in which our technocratic priesthood is heavily invested. Someday our hegemony will end; how will we deal with our inevitable post-superpower status? How will the transition come about? Me, I'd rather it happen with a whimper than with a bang... and perhaps an important part of quietly stepping down from the position of Global Bad-Ass is a more responsible attitude toward the development of new technology.