A Hippocratic oath for PhDs
"On reading," by Simon Wain-Hobson, is a weekly discussion of scientific papers and news articles around gain of function research in virology.
Since January 2024, Dr. Wain-Hobson has written weekly essays for Biosafety Now discussing risky research in virology. You can read his entire series here.
On wondering about the last ten essays
Readers know that virology is beset by the decade long GOF DURC issue. The last cluster of essays exposes it as only research of concern for there were no benefits to the work, just hazard (Virus research of concern). A more recent paper went out of its way to make a non-transmissible virus transmissible (Too much), while another showed that in the lab the acquisition of a single mutation allowed canine distemper virus to grow on human cells (More GOOFing). The Risky Research Review Bill going through the US Congress (Risky Research Review Bill) has faced pushback with We the people like declarations (We the virologists). As though we weren’t already in cloud cuckoo land, the paroxysm was a call for censoring of scientific opinion that questions anything that might tarnish virology (Censoring virology). Virology is just another vignette on society. Only open discussion can help defuse these tensions.
Huge geopolitical problems exist on the planet, people still fight (mainly men) or lord it over smaller neighbors while others squander precious resources like water. Climate change, the elephant in every room will be very difficult to solve as it impacts everybody’s way of life.
Other problems are closely anchored in scientific developments, such as AI. The concerns of the 2024 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, Geoffrey Hinton, have been known for a while and were covered in the essay (Virus Research of Concern). Since then, he has ratcheted up his concern.
“Because the situation we’re in now is that most of the experts in the field think that sometime, within probably the next 20 years, we’re going to develop AIs that are smarter than people. And that’s a very scary thought.”
Hinton said the pace of development was “very, very fast, much faster than I expected” and called for government regulation of the technology.
“My worry is that the invisible hand is not going to keep us safe. So just leaving it to the profit motive of large companies is not going to be sufficient to make sure they develop it safely,” he said. “The only thing that can force those big companies to do more research on safety is government regulation.
Dual Use research of Concern (DURC) has been brushed under the carpet with most scientists not having a clue as to the dual use component of their work. They are so locked in a competitive system, referred to as publish or perish, they don’t have time for anything else. That is the perception, yet the recent paper on Mirror Life in the top journal Science is an encouraging example that bucks the trend. A group of scientists are clearly thinking about the long-term impact of their work.
They are brave enough to call for the prohibition of this line of research (Mirror life). At the same time, they urge all stakeholders to discuss the issue openly. All this is in stark contrast to the way the NIH and virologists handled GOF/DURC bird flu and COVID origins.
Where is the line between a scientist pursuing their curiosity and the interests of society? A minimum we might expect of them is first, do no harm.
Sound familiar? Medics are bound by their Hippocratic oath which can be succinctly resumed as First, do no harm. It is not by coincidence that there have been three ‘Do no Harm’ essays.
But think about it, while medics can do harm, their evil results generally a small number of deaths. The more than 200 crimes attributed to Howard Shipman were exceptional. Of course, the SS doctors did worse. Macabre as this paragraph has become, these numbers pale into nothing compared to the deaths arising from a novel pandemic. For COVID they are in the 20 million plus range.
Yet even if scaled down a thousand times, 20,000+ deaths would still overshadow those from the SARS1 and MERS outbreaks, respectively 774 and 943.
The number comes in above that for the horrible 2014-16 outbreak of Ebola virus in West Africa, - 11,325 deaths.
Now what about the impact of the manmade GOF/DURC or DURC viruses? As has been said before many times, nobody has any idea of their potential in humans, although it would be wise to credit them with pandemic potential. And even if watered down a thousand times, that could result in more deaths than SARS1, MERS… you know the argument.
Insisting that medics take the Hippocratic oath while not insisting on the same for virologists, life science students or science students in general makes no sense.
A simple start would be to convince universities who offer graduate courses in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) to get their students to take a Hippocratic oath at the end of their PhD thesis viva. The oath could be very simple, something like:
I am deeply aware that society underpins science. I promise not to use my education or my research for any purpose that may harm humans, animals or plants. If confronted by a situation where my work could be used by others to cause harm, I will share my concerns with university staffers.
• It reminds the university and the student that society is behind the support for science. It is not a right. Science is undertaken to help society.
• The freshly minted PhD makes a promise.
• If confronted by a dual use conundrum, you name it, the PhD shares their concerns with others. It is based on the age-old maxim, a trouble shared is a trouble halved. In so doing it avoids the complex task of spelling out in advance what is or is not dual use as well as trying to cover all bases.
Funding agencies too could add a paragraph to official contracts along the lines of:
I am deeply aware that society underpins science. I promise not to use my education or my research for any purpose that may harm humans, animals or plants. If confronted by a situation where my work could be used by others to cause harm, I will share my concerns with funding agency staffers.
If signed by all those who involved in the grant this would cover the post-docs as well as the experienced lab bosses who are obviously anywhere from 10 to 40+ years on from their PhD thesis vivas.
Experience says that there will always be some exceptions, but these two variants cover most STEM students, academics as well as philanthropic foundations. Industry may balk but they would feel the pressure. The Risky Research Review Act that is going through the US Congress is aware of this, but a start is needed. Any loopholes could be discussed and closed, if necessary, by legislation.
It’s not a big ask. First, do no harm – a lower bar you’d have difficulty finding. And of course, there is the historical precedent for medics.
The Risky Research Review Bill needs to pass into US law. Other nations should wake up to the dangers of DURC.
The alternative? It seems that both AI and perhaps Mirror Life are making good progress towards our extinction. Along with past NIH stubbornness over GOF virology, an allergy towards openness and a near complete unawareness of DURC, there is a real chance of success.
Aside 1
In the past some prestigious names have called for a Hippocratic oath for scientists. See the Wikipedia page for a history and references. Why is it so hard to agree on setting such a low bar?
Aside 2
The World Health Association website provides a “Modern Hippocratic Oath”.
Aside 3
On January 28, 2025 the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists reset the Doomsday Clock advancing it a second to 89 seconds, the closest humanity has ever to extinction: a move of even a single second should be taken as an indication of extreme danger and an unmistakable warning that every second of delay in reversing course increases the probability of global disaster.
Aside 4
Today is Lincoln’s birthday.
Yes! Nothing but upside to such an oath. And nothing but wisdom. It’s we, the public, that are failing. For not getting involved, with such much life at stake. Would be honorable action for a White House ‘to demand’ this be attached to a privilege the scientists you describe now have, too terrible to imagine.
Can you through your contacts, get a request to the President, through a Cabinet member or two, as an Executive action suggestion. It fits as a regulation.
In this WH blitz strategy, which perfectly fits the bio stakes, all sorts of ideas bubbling up through the ranks is correct. As the quick decision maker the President is, and this a mission fit, and something that will happen, the prescience deserves a ‘yes’.