Skip to main content

“I Don’t Want to Do Anything Bad.” Perspectives on Scientific Responsibility: Results from a Qualitative Interview Study with Senior Scientists


This paper presents scientists’ understanding of their roles in society and corresponding responsibilities. It discusses the researchers’ perspective against the background of the contemporary literature on scientific responsibility in the social sciences and philosophy and proposes a heuristic that improves the understanding of the complexity of scientific responsibility. The study is based on qualitative interviews with senior scientists. The presented results show what researchers themselves see as their responsibilities, how they assume them, and what challenges they perceive with respect to their responsibilities. Regarding the latter, the interviewed researchers highlight those aspects of responsibility that go beyond the expertise of their professional role, and thus cannot be carried by scientists alone. For example, scientists alone cannot determine the general direction science takes, or the useful application of their research. The interviewed researchers describe those challenges as responsibilities that must be shared across different societal groups. In the theoretical literature, responsibility has been described as a relation between an actor (who), the action for which someone is responsible (what), and the normative framework against which someone is responsible (why). We will draw on this concept of “relational responsibility” to identify the various actors, normative frameworks, and actions relevant to scientific responsibility. This will serve as a heuristic tool to help identify the entanglement of responsibilities spread across several societal groups.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  1. The edited volume from Vincent, van de Poel and van den Hoven [37] or the article by Fischer [23] provide good overviews of the responsibility discourse.

  2. During the study the interview guide was slightly adjusted according to prior experiences. Furthermore, all interviews have been conducted by the same person (S.W.), who adjusted the questions according to the flow of the interview.

  3. Due to an adjustment in the course of the study, four interviews were not analyzed, as they no longer fit the inclusion criteria. Three interviews were conducted with media experts who were intended to be a second group of interviewees. However, it did not prove to be feasible to compare scientists and media experts at the given point in time. The same holds true for the group of junior researchers, who were also considered as a contrasting group. Hence, one interview with a junior researcher was also excluded.

  4. For example, the recent genetic modification of two Chinese babies with the CRISPR/Cas9 technology [73], or the risk of releasing genetically modified organisms into the environment, can be understood as misuse.

  5. Other topics of science communication have been discussed intensively in the literature and provided a robust corpus of data regarding the science and society relationship [78, 79]. It is not the aim of this paper to discuss the science and society relationship in detail; however, the next section will discuss one central challenge regarding scientific responsibility: the decision-making process in society.

  6. Another approach to structuring aspects of scientific responsibility with the help of a relational responsibility regarding knowledge of synthetic biology was proposed by Deplazes Zemp and Leidel [90]. Another similar approach regarding the understanding of risk was proposed by Boholm and Corvellec [91].


  1. Butts CF (1948) Science and social responsibility. Philos Sci 15(2):100–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Edsall JT (1976) Scientific freedom and responsibility. Mol Cell Biochem 11(2):113–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Louros NC (1977) Die Verantwortung der Wissenschaft. Arch. Gynak. (Archiv für Gynäkologie) 224(1–4):499–504.

  4. Cetto AM, Schneegans S, Moore H et al (eds) (2000) World conference on science for the twenty-first century: a new commitment. Banson, London

    Google Scholar 

  5. Berkelman RL, Le Duc JW (2014) Culture of responsibility. Science 345(6201):1101.

  6. Rotblat SJ (1999) A Hippocratic Oath for scientists. Science 286(5444):1475.

  7. Heisenberg W (2002) Der Teil und das Ganze: Gespräche im Umkreis der Atomphysik. Piper, München

  8. Lorenz R (2010) Die „Göttinger Erklärung“ von 1957: Gelehrtenprotest in der Ära Adenauer. In: Lorenz R, Klatt J (eds) Manifeste. Transcript Verlag, pp 199–228

  9. Bopp F, Born M, Fleischmann R et al (1957) Göttinger Manifest.

  10. Born M, Bridgman PW, Einstein A et al (1955) The Russell-Einstein Manifesto. Accessed 31 Jan 2020

  11. Berg P, Baltimore D, Brenner S, Roblin RO, Singer MF (1975) Summary statement of the Asilomar conference on recombinant DNA molecules. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 72(6):1981–1984

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Donald KJ, Kovac J (2013) The scientist's education and a civic conscience. Sci Eng Ethics 19(3):1229–1240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Baltimore D, Berg P, Botchan M, Carroll D, Charo RA, Church G, Corn JE, Daley GQ, Doudna JA, Fenner M, Greely HT, Jinek M, Martin GS, Penhoet E, Puck J, Sternberg SH, Weissman JS, Yamamoto KR (2015) Biotechnology. A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification. Science 348(6230):36–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wolpert L (1989) The social responsibility of scientists: moonshine and morals. BMJ 298(6678):941–943.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Forsberg E-M (2015) ELSA and RRI--editorial. Life Sci Soc Policy 11:2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. European Commission (2012) Responsible research and innovation: Europe's ability to respond to societal challenges. EDC collection. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  17. Davies SR, Glerup C, Horst M (2014) On being responsible: multiplicity in responsible development. In: Arnaldi S, Ferrari A, Magaudda P et al (eds) Responsibility in nanotechnology development. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 143–159

  18. Hardimon MO (1994) Role obligations. J Philos 91(7):333.

  19. Douglas HE (2003) The moral responsibilities of scientists (tensions between autonomy and responsibility). Am Philos Q 40(1):59–68

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hart HLA, Gardner J (2009) Punishment and responsibility: essays in the philosophy of law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  21. Jonas H (1988) Das Prinzip Verantwortung: Versuch einer Ethik für die technologische Zivilisation, 8th ed. Insel-Verl., Frankfurt am Main

  22. Bayertz K (ed) (1995) Verantwortung: Prinzip oder Problem? Wiss. Buchges, Darmstadt

  23. Fischer JM (1999) Recent work on moral responsibility. Ethics 110(1):93–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Forge J (2008) The responsible scientist: a philosophical inquiry. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh

  25. Douglas HE (2009) Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh

    Book  Google Scholar 

  26. Lenk H (1991) Zu einer praxisnahen Ethik der Verantwortung in den Wissenschaften. In: Lenk H (ed) Wissenschaft und Ethik. Reclam, Stuttgart, pp 54–75

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lenk H (1992) Zwischen Wissenschaft und Ethik. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main

  28. Sombetzki J (2014) Verantwortung als Begriff, Fähigkeit, Aufgabe. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  29. Vincent NA (2011) A structured taxonomy of responsibility concepts. In: Vincent NA, van de Poel I, van den Hoven J (eds) Moral responsibility: beyond free will and determinism. Springer, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York, pp 15–35

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. van de Poel I (2011) The relation between forward-looking and backward-looking responsibility. In: Vincent NA, van de Poel I, van den Hoven J (eds) Moral responsibility: beyond free will and determinism. Springer, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York, pp 37–52

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  31. Mitcham C (2003) Co-responsibility for research integrity. Sci Eng Ethics 9(2):273–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Bovenkerk B (2015) Scientific responsibility: should analysis start with the scientists? Am J Bioeth 15(12):66–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Duff RA (2007) Responsibility. In: King P (ed) Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy online. Routledge

  34. von Schomberg R (2007) From the ethics of technology towards an ethics of knowledge policy & knowledge assessment. SSRN Electron J.

  35. von Schomberg R (2010) Organising collective responsibility: on precaution, codes of conduct and understanding public debate. In: Fiedeler U, Coenen C, Davies SR et al (eds) Understanding nanotechnology: philosophy, policy and publics. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft AKA/IOS Press, Heidelberg, pp 61–70

  36. Spruit SL, Hoople GD, Rolfe DA (2016) Just a cog in the machine? The individual responsibility of researchers in nanotechnology is a duty to collectivize. Sci Eng Ethics 22(3):871–887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Vincent NA, van de Poel I, van den Hoven J (eds) (2011) Moral responsibility: beyond free will and determinism (Library of ethics and applied philosophy 27). Springer, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York

  38. Davis M (1999) Professional responsibility: just following the rules? Bus Prof Ethics J 18(1):65–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Davis M (2012) "Ain't no one here but us social forces": constructing the professional responsibility of engineers. Sci Eng Ethics 18(1):13–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Wolpe PR (2006) Reasons scientists avoid thinking about ethics. Cell 125(6):1023–1025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Weber M, Wells GC, Dreijmanis J (2008) Max Weber’s complete writings on academic and political vocations. In: Classics series. Algora Pub, New York

  42. Merton RK (1974) The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations [4th pr.]. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

  43. Luhmann N (2009) Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main

  44. Hackett EJ (2008) The handbook of science and technology studies, 3rd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

  45. Kerr A, Cunningham-Burley S, Amos A (1997) The new genetics: professionals’ discursive boundaries. Sociol Rev 45(2):279–303.

  46. Nicholas B (1999) Molecular geneticists and moral responsibility: “maybe if we were working on the atom bomb I would have a different argument”. Sci Eng Ethics 5(4):515–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. von Schomberg R (2013) A vision of responsible research and innovation. In: Owen R (ed) Responsible innovation: managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. Wiley, Chichester, pp 51–74

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  48. Stilgoe J, Owen R, Macnaghten P (2013) Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res Policy 42(9):1568–1580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Arnaldi S, Gorgoni G (2016) Turning the tide or surfing the wave? Responsible research and innovation, fundamental rights and neoliberal virtues. Life Sci Soc Policy 12(1):6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Kjølberg KL, Strand R (2011) Conversations about responsible nanoresearch. Nanoethics 5(1):99–113.

  51. Grunwald A (2012) Responsible nanobiotechnology: philosophy and ethics. CRC Press, Hoboken

  52. Arnaldi S, Ferrari A,Magaudda P, Marin F (eds) (2014) Responsibility in nanotechnology development (The international library of ethics, law and technology 13). Springer, Dordrecht

  53. Loroño-Leturiondo M, Davies SR (2018) Responsibility and science communication: scientists’ experiences of and perspectives on public communication activities. Journal of Responsible Innovation 3(2):1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Glerup C, Davies SR, Horst M (2017) ‘Nothing really responsible goes on here’: scientists’ experience and practice of responsibility. Journal of Responsible Innovation 4(3):319–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Davies SR, Horst M (2015) Crafting the group: care in research management. Soc Stud Sci 45(3):371–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Glerup C, Horst M (2014) Mapping ‘social responsibility’ in science. Journal of Responsible Innovation 1(1):31–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Horst M (2013) A field of expertise, the organization, or science itself?: scientists’ perception of representing research in public communication. Sci Commun 35(6):758–779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. McCarthy E, Kelty C (2010) Responsibility and nanotechnology. Soc Stud Sci 40(3):405–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Frankel MS (2015) An empirical exploration of scientists’ social responsibilities. Journal of Responsible Innovation:1–10.

  60. Wyndham J, Albro R, Ettinger J et al (2015) Social responsibilities: a preliminary inquiry into the perspectives of scientists, engineers and health professionals (Report prepared under the auspices of the AAAS Science and Human Rights Coalition and AAAS Scientific Responsibility, Human Rights and Law Program).

  61. Schuurbiers D (2010) Social responsibility in research practice: engaging applied scientists with the socio-ethical context of their work (Simon Stevin series in the ethics of technology).

  62. Felt U, Fochler M, Sigl L (2018) IMAGINE RRI. A card-based method for reflecting on responsibility in life science research. Journal of Responsible Innovation 5(2):201–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Helfferich C (2011) Die Qualität qualitativer Daten: manual für die Durchführung qualitativer interviews, 4th edn. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden

  64. Stake RE (2010) Qualitative research: studying how things work. Guilford Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  65. Patton MQ (1990) Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Newbury Park

    Google Scholar 

  66. Sandelowski M (1995) Sample size in qualitative research. Res Nurs Health 18(2):179–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Coyne IT (1997) Sampling in qualitative research. Purposeful and theoretical sampling; merging or clear boundaries? J Adv Nurs 26(3):623–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Glaser BG, Strauss AL (2009) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research [4th paperback pr.]. Aldine, New Brunswick

  69. Charmaz K (2014) Constructing grounded theory. In: Introducing qualitative methods, 2nd edn. Sage, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC

  70. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (U.S.) (2009) On being a scientist: a guide to responsible conduct in research, 3rd edn. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C

    Google Scholar 

  71. World Conferences on Research Integrity (2010) Singapore statement on research integrity.

  72. ALLEA All European Academies (2017) The European code of conduct for research integrity.

  73. Cyranoski D, Ledford H (2018) Genome-edited baby claim provokes international outcry. Nature 563(7733):607–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Thompson DF (1980) Moral responsibility of public officials: the problem of many hands. Am Polit Sci Rev 74(04):905–916.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. van de Poel I, Fahlquist JN, Doorn N, Zwart S, Royakkers L (2012) The problem of many hands: climate change as an example. Sci Eng Ethics 18(1):49–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Douglas HE (2014) The moral terrain of science. Erkenn 79(S5):961–979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Irwin A (2014) From deficit to democracy (re-visited). Public Underst Sci 23(1):71–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Jamieson KH, Kahan DM, Scheufele DA (eds) (2017) The Oxford handbook on the science of science communication. In: Oxford library of psychology. Oxford University Press, New York

  79. Bubela T, Nisbet MC, Borchelt R, Brunger F, Critchley C, Einsiedel E, Geller G, Gupta A, Hampel J, Hyde-Lay R, Jandciu EW, Jones SA, Kolopack P, Lane S, Lougheed T, Nerlich B, Ogbogu U, O'Riordan K, Ouellette C, Spear M, Strauss S, Thavaratnam T, Willemse L, Caulfield T (2009) Science communication reconsidered. Nat Biotechnol 27(6):514–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Caulfield T (2004) Scientific freedom and research cloning: can a ban be justified? Lancet 364(9429):124–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Wilholt T (2010) Scientific freedom: its grounds and their limitations. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 41(2):174–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Jarvis M (2017) AAAS adopts scientific freedom and responsibility statement. Science 358(6362):462.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Lacey H (2005) Is science value free?: values and scientific understanding. Philosophical Issues in Science. Taylor and Francis, Florence

  84. Stevenson L (1989) Is scientific research value-neutral? SINQ 32(2):213–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Wylie A, Kincaid H, Dupré J (2007) Value-free science?: ideals and illusions. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  86. Kempner J, Perlis CS, Merz JF (2005) Ethics. Forbidden knowledge. Science 307(5711):854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Collins F (1972) Social ethics and the conduct of science: specialization and the fragmentation of responsibility. Ann N Y Acad Sci 196(4 the social re):213–217.

  88. Forge J (2000) Moral responsibility and the 'ignorant scientist'. Sci Eng Ethics 6(3):341–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Forge J (2000) Science and moral responsibility: an outline. Melb Stud Educ 41(2):61–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Deplazes-Zemp A, Leidel S (2011) Scientific knowledge leads to moral responsibilities – case study synthetic biology. In: Cockell M, Billotte J (eds) Common knowledge: the challenge of transdisciplinarity, 1st edn. EPFL Press, Lausanne, pp 61–73

  91. Boholm Å, Corvellec H (2011) A relational theory of risk. Journal of Risk Research 14(2):175–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank our interview partners for participating in this research.

This publication is supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation as part of the NCCR Molecular Systems Engineering.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sebastian Wäscher.

Ethics declarations

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wäscher, S., Biller-Andorno, N. & Deplazes-Zemp, A. “I Don’t Want to Do Anything Bad.” Perspectives on Scientific Responsibility: Results from a Qualitative Interview Study with Senior Scientists. Nanoethics 14, 135–153 (2020).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


  • Scientific responsibility
  • Science ethics
  • Qualitative research
  • Interview study
  • Science and technology
  • Relational responsibility