“1. Awareness. Scientists have an obligation to do no harm. They should always take into consideration the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their own activities. They should therefore:
• always bear in mind the potential consequences – possibly harmful – of their research and recognize that individual good conscience does not justify ignoring the possible misuse of their scientific endeavour;
• refuse to undertake research that has only harmful consequences for humankind.
…
5. Oversight. Scientists with responsibility for oversight of research or for evaluation of projects or publications should promote adherence to these principles by those under their control, supervision or evaluation and act as role models in this regard.”
Article 1 is pretty clear. Article 5 clearly identifies funders, their reviewers and journal editorial staff as guardians that should set an example.
Unfortunately very few people know about the IAP statement. Those that do invariably are national academy members. There was no pedagogic effort made on behalf of the member academies to make this known to PIs and those at the bench.
