On May 24-25, the Center and the Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility of the American Association for the advancement of Science co-sponsored a workshop on the experience of and expectations for the scientific and technical professional societies in promoting ethical conduct by their members. More than 40 participants, representing professional society staff and ethics committee members, legal counsel to the societies, government agencies, university faculty, corporate management and professional journals, joined in discussion of some of the promises and pitfalls of the professional society's role in matters of ethics. Each morning of the workshop included a plenary session, while the afternoons were devoted to small discussion groups. The two plenary sessions will be described first, followed by a summary of the four discussion groups, all of which were held concurrently during both days.

The Plenary Sessions
The first day of the workshop convened with a plenary session on "Professional Society Ethics Activities: Current Policies, Programs and Procedures," with four speakers approaching the topic from somewhat different perspectives. Rosemary Chalk, co-director of the workshop and Program Head of the AAAS Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility, presented an overview of the professional ethics activities undertaken by scientific and technical societies. She included in her talk some of the results of a 1979-80 survey of such activities involving more than 200 societies affiliated with the AAAS in order to make some comparisons with current professional society programs. (The survey results were part of a larger published volume entitled, Professional Ethics Activities in the Scientific and Engineering Societies. The 1980 book is available from the AAAS at 1333 H. St., NW, Washington, DC 20005.)

Attorney Barbara Mishkin, former Deputy Director of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, focused her remarks on the lawlethics interface, especially with regard to health care providers and biomedical researchers. Mishkin argued forcefully that an important component of any effective ethics program was the willingness of professionals to report inept or unethical colleagues to authorities, and she recommended the adoption of a uniform state law that offered immunity to those professionals who did so.

The third morning presentation was by David Mills, Administrative Officer for Ethics of the American Psychological Association, who reviewed the ethics activities of the social and behavioral science professions.

A set of issues especially pertinent to the social and behavioral sciences relate to confidentiality and privacy. Mills reviewed the importance of confidentiality to the professional client relationship, and discussed privileged communication statutes intended to enforce confidentiality. Yet, he also noted exceptions to both the principle of confidentiality and the legal privilege, focusing especially on the professionals "duty to warn" as it has evolved through common law. A professional, warned Mills, would be ill advised to ignore this duty to warn third parties if the threat posed to the latter by a client endangered their well-being.

The final presentation that morning was by William Middleton, Chairman of the Member Conduct Committee of the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Middleton's charge was to review the ethics activities of the engineering and physical science professional societies. He concluded his talk by urging professional societies with common experiences to create a mechanism or process for exchanging information and ideas related to their professional ethics activities.
The plenary session on the second day began with Mark Frankel's examination of the normative role of professional societies in promoting ethical practices. He concluded with the observation that if one accepts that a professional association can be held morally accountable, then it has a duty to put in place mechanisms that will enable it to meet its responsibility.

Following Frankel's presentation, Charles Levy, Chairman of the Ethics Advisory Panel of the National Association of Social Workers, explored the opportunities and obstacles confronting professional societies relative to their ethics activities. While recognizing the diversity among professions, Levy also noted the commonality associated with professional efforts to codify, implement and enforce their ethics. Whatever self-serving function may be promoted by a profession's ethical stance, it is quite evident that this ethics is a matter of considerable public interest and will be appropriately scrutinized by bodies external to the profession. Indeed, Levy observed that more or less authoritatively, patients and clients know more and are demanding more of professions, and they are increasingly appealing to public agencies and the legal system to satisfy their demands.

The next speaker was Arthur Lerner, an attorney who was former Assistant Director of the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) Bureau of Competition. Lerner discussed the implications of the antitrust laws for professional associations, reviewing recent Supreme Court decisions affecting the profession's effort to articulate and enforce ethical principles. He also described the FTC's role in overseeing professional activity during his tenure in the Bureau of Competition. He stressed the importance for professional associations to be informed of the legal constraints under which they must operate when administering their ethics activities.

The final speaker that morning was Judith Swazey, Director of The Acadia Institute. She discussed the societies' gatekeeping role, emphasizing the ethical responsibilities of professional journals. She urged professional societies to pay more attention to competency standards and continuing education, to the education and socialization of graduate students and to explore innovative and effective sanction and support activities. Ways need to be found, argued Swazey, to sensitize graduate students to the ethical dilemmas likely to be associated with their work as professionals, and she urged the professional societies to take a more active role in that effort.

The Discussion Groups
Among the issues raised during the professional ethics and law interface group meetings, two were especially prominent. In one instance, group members discussed the importance of the professional societies clarifying the duties of professionals, particularly engineers, to report on matters of safety and to whom such reports must be made. The second issue that generated considerable discussion was the responsibility of the professional society in its investigations of alleged wrongdoing.

The group session on developing a code of ethics focused on four themes or questions: (1) For what purposes should codes be developed?; (2) Who can and should develop a code of ethics for a profession?; (3) Should codes be enforced and, if so, how and by whom? (4) What should be built into a code to insure that it can be modified as conditions change?
At the group sessions on sanctions/support activities, most of the participants expressed dismay about the limited range of activities and resources available to their societies for supporting members who experience difficulty in performing their professional duties in an ethical manner or for investigating claims of member wrongdoing.

How the societies could educate their members and students about professional ethics matters was the thrust of the group sessions on educational materials and programs. Professional societies were called on to work more closely with university faculty in developing and disseminating appropriate materials for graduate education.

Conclusion
The results of a formal evaluation completed by the workshop participants and a more detailed summary of the workshop will be available at a later date. For more details, contact the office of:

The Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility AAAS
1333 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005.