http://www.guardian.co.uk/genes/article/0,2763,1562913,00.html?gusrc=rss

I think the most interesting part of this article is this:

"He[Lord Winston] said ethics should be an essential part of an undergraduate science course. "It happens in medical schools. It should happen [in science] because the issues are just as important.""

Somewhere a long time ago I argued for this and also for a specific set of classes on the scientific methodology.  I studied several curriculums used by major universities and 'scientific methodology' was always wrapped up in the context of some other class.  So, it was 'scientific method' as applied to biology, SM as applied to physics, etc.   The origin, development, and synthesis of the SM on its own basis was not a deliberate part of the curriculum.   The myth would be that it is the same throughout all the disciplines, but its simply not true.  And they wouldn't know that, since they don't study it in its own right, and nowhere are they asked to view their own methods objectively.

So, they don't get ethics, and they aren't challenged to critique their own methodology, but we treat them- scientists- with extreme deference.

It begs the question, Just because they CAN do something, should we let them?  Who decides?  Them?

Naturally, allow them into the process.  But a little humility on their part would probably go a long way.