Sir

Paul Copland in his Correspondence “Science and ethics must not be separated” (Nature 425, 121; 200310.1038/425121a) argues that ethics is an integral part of science and therefore the two must not be separated. But I believe that we should distinguish between separation (which is necessary to allow for the development of expertise) and the use of unscientific approaches (which can make communication with scientists impossible).

Scientists should therefore not argue against the establishment of the philosophical discipline of bioethics; rather, they should welcome it. What science should argue for is a 'scientific' rather than a dogmatic approach in the humanities, and specifically in bioethics.

Philosophically, perhaps the biggest achievement of science is the abandonment of dogmatism and the acceptance that all scientific knowledge can potentially be changed by new data and new insights. Similarly, scientists should request from scholars in the humanities that they abandon any “ill-defined 'personal philosophy' and 'gut feeling'” and open themselves to an informed search for the better argument.

It is naive to believe that the views of scientists (especially those directly involved in discoveries) would be more objective than those of expert bioethicists.

The problem with science is that we often do not know the answers for certain. Will stem-cell research develop a cure for Parkinson's disease? Will transgenic crops pose any risk at all? And therefore we can only present data, which then form the basis of non-scientific decisions. There is no reason to assume that scientists would be better equipped to make these decisions than non-scientists.

The fact that bioethics has developed as a discipline distinct from science simply reflects the reality that, unfortunately, most scientists do not have the time to become experts in the philosophy of science and bioethics.

We should therefore not fight the development of a philosophical discipline of bioethics, but should ensure that the approaches the discipline takes are scientific and undogmatic.