Academia is burdened by a deeply concerning misconception: the idea of a perceived dichotomy between the sciences and the humanities. 

We learn this fictitious schism and as a result, many of us hold the belief that these fields have no reason to ever overlap. We must choose between these false ideals, and I worry that we may risk losing something extremely valuable as a result.

While it may not be as prominent in every aspect of daily life, axiology — the philosophical study of virtue and value — is inseparable from our studies in college. For every academic question, there is an equally important set of ethical and moral questions, be they about research methodology or even the premise, goals, and applications thereof.

Unfortunately, I feel that the axiology of academia has largely been neglected, and many undergraduate students express some degree of aversion to the idea of ethics in education. As someone who is pursuing a major in chemistry, I believe that ethics are fundamental to the kind of education students like me should be pursuing.

Though the primary goal of science is the systematic accumulation of knowledge, there is an inherent humanism to the scientific method and its root motive. The knowledge we gather expands our understanding of the world — and with every new discovery, researchers find ways to apply that knowledge to address the lasting issues facing humanity.

Science, engineering and applied sciences are, for all intents and purposes, a means of bettering the human experience via knowledge and application. As such, it is essential that students are taught to approach the scientific method through an ethical lens. Of course, that would require us to have discussions which establish a foundation for the virtues we seek to uphold in science and engineering.

We should establish a basis in the idea of applying science and technology for the physical, mental and emotional benefit of humanity, with human health and knowledge being the core virtues therein. In this sense, we can think of science as a means of achieving those virtues — and through this, we can begin to set down which ethical frameworks we should see in STEM education.

At a surface level, it is imperative that research ethics be taught to students for the sake of teaching academic honesty and accountability. Aspiring researchers should learn the importance of transparency and integrity in their methodology, data sources and funding.

To illustrate the need to uphold the virtues of health and knowledge in the academic sphere, two particular scientific fields come to mind: biotechnology and computer science, namely the subfields of genetic engineering and machine learning. 

Though these fields have the potential to revolutionize the world — and indeed they have, with innovations such as drought-resistant crops and AI-assisted cancer prognosis — the research of these topics has attracted concern, especially in the eyes of science communicators.

As technologies like genetic modification and machine learning advance further, questions grow about their usage. For instance, the development of generative AI is a major concern for communicators like Kyle Hill, who voices concerns about its use in daily communication and content generation, namely the issues of algorithmic bias and threats to personal privacy. Similarly, bioethicists worry about the future of genetic engineering. Many have voiced concerns about the ethical implications of modifying animal genomes and the societal implications of human gene editing. 

The same technology used to combat hereditary illnesses like cystic fibrosis can also be exploited for bioterrorism and eugenics — two major concerns which pervade ongoing discourse on the regulations and ethical applications of genetic engineering.

If we are to edit the human genome, we must discuss which modifications are intended, as well as the intentionality and ramifications thereof. In order to achieve this, one must have a solid grasp on the ethical and socio-cultural implications of gene editing.

Another prominent concern is that of pervasive racism in biometric surveillance technology and in human genome mapping. This can be seen in the racial bias associated with facial recognition technology, as well as the ways in which eugenicists have abused genomics to perpetuate scientific racism. The socio-political implications of these fields must be discussed in order to maintain ethical approaches thereto.

Oftentimes people think of technology as ethically neutral, but this is not the case. Its ethicality is based on direct intention — consider the altruistic goals of developing nanomedicine versus the despicable goals of developing weapons of mass destruction. As such, it is imperative that scientists-to-be learn the importance of intentionality; the ethics of STEM lie both in the intentions of research and its utilization. I believe we should learn about these ramifications, lest the sciences be exploited for harm.

We are at a point in history where technological progress is seemingly inevitable. In order to uphold the humanistic vision of STEM as a branch of academia, we must remember that it is only possible if we approach scientific research ethically and responsibly.

To make this possible, I believe research and engineering-oriented classes should incorporate the topic of scientific ethics into their curriculum — be it research integrity, bioethics or otherwise. 

For instance, a class on biotechnology could delve into bioethics, whereas a class on nanoscience may address the ethical concerns of nanotechnology. STEM is inseparable from its methods and ramifications, and we must learn about them  in order to ensure a responsible scientific community.