To: s4p all lists ,
s4pont@physics.utoronto.ca,
        s4ptor@physics.utoronto.ca, INESnet 

The Toronto Resolution (TTR) was formulated in 1992, but only now is it 
available on the internet. The version enclosed below gives the names of 
the people who participated in its composition, and information about 
its publication in the scholarly literature.
TTR desrves to be widely promulgated. Please distribute it to friends and 
colleagues, draw the attention of your own professional society to the 
need to incorporate its principles in their own Code of Ethics, post it 
on appropriate WEB sites, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                    THE TORONTO RESOLUTION


INTRODUCTION

We present a methodology for assessing particular ethical codes, which
comprises the key elements that all codes of ethics in science and
scholarship should include.  By suggesting that codes adopt a common
Preamble, and that they consider addressing common elements to their
codes, we are expressing our hope that the community of scholars and
scientists can agree to a common moral framework for the conduct of their
investigations.  Each discipline should develop a particular code in the
light of these considerations, and existing codes should be examined for
their adequacy, effectiveness and applicability.
 

PREAMBLE   

Living in a world in which all forms of life are interdependent, we
recognize that human activity since the scientific revolution now
threatens the future of life on the planet.  This threat stems in part
from reckless exploitation of the earth's resources and massive pollution
of the biosphere by humankind, exacerbated by rampant militarism.  To help
solve these problems, scientists and scholars, and all those concerned
with the welfare of life on earth, need to unite in a world-wide moral
community, in which considerations of beneficence and justice at a global
level are fundamental.  We recognize that knowledge gives power; that
power tends to corrupt and may be used for dangerous and destructive
purposes; and that consequently scientists and scholars, who share the
privilege of participating in the advancement of knowledge, many under the
shelter of academic freedom and in the tradition of open publication, have
a particular responsibility to society for the effects of their work.  All
should make a determined individual and collective effort to foresee the
implications and possible consequences of their scholarly and scientific
work, and avoid studies that are likely to harm the quality of life.  We
should recognize that knowledge also gives enlightenment and promises
emancipation from disease, poverty and other social evils.  As an alert
and enlightened community of experts and concerned citizens, scientists
and scholars should participate in the social process of directing their
research and its applications to benign ends, while educating their
students and the public concerning this, the proper role of scholarly and
scientific knowledge. 


ELEMENTS OF CODES OF ETHICS

  Considering the existence of numerous codes of ethics, most being
specific to a single discipline, and often to the scientists and scholars
in only one country; 
  Considering the difficulty of expressing in a single code the concerns
of scientists and scholars in various disciplines and in different
countries; 
  Considering that war is obsolete, at best futile and at worst
destructive beyond comprehension or tolerance, and that the present level
of direct military research is unprecedented, with human, physical and
financial resources being thus diverted away from the proper ends of
science and scholarship: 

1. a code should articulate as far as possible the underlying assumptions 
and guiding principles of a working ethic;

2. a code should indicate specific measures designed to ensure that
signatories adhere to its principles;

3. a code should be sufficiently general to encompass scholarly work and 
basic, applied and technological research as well as the actions of 
practitioners engaged in the discipline or profession;

4. a code should oppose prejudice with respect to sex, religion, national
or ethnic origin, age, sexual preference, colour, or physical or mental
disability; 

5. a code should take into account that, while in general it is difficult
to anticipate all the consequences of research, scientists and scholars
have a responsibility, individually and collectively, to try to foresee,
and to keep themselves aware of, the developing applications of their
work, and to choose or redirect it accordingly; 

6. a code should recognize that actions designed narrowly to benefit 
humankind may in fact threaten the survival of all species, since the 
ecosystem is a seamless web;

7. a code should forbid research directed towards developing or using
methods of torture, or other devices and techniques that threaten or
violate individual or collective human rights; 

8. a code should direct scholarly and scientific activity towards the
peaceful resolution of conflict and universal disarmament; since all
research has military potential, every scientist and scholar should seek
to resolve the ethical problem that knowledge, which should enlighten and
benefit humanity, may be used instead to harm the planet and its people in
war and in preparation for war (see Appendix A); 

9. a code should encourage its adherents to comply with established
procedures for the scientific and (where appropriate) ethical peer review
of research studies conducted under its auspices and, where such
procedures do not exist, a code should specify them; 

10. a code should urge its adherents to make all basic research results 
universally available;

11. a code should urge its adherents to identify and report violations of
its terms, and should correspondingly ensure their protection from
retribution by their fellow-scientists, professional and learned
societies, and the judiciary for such exposure; 

12. a code should be widely disseminated through the school and university
curricula, to educate the rising generations, as well as practising
scientists and scholars, about their emerging responsibilities. 


GENESIS

The Toronto Resolution was formulated at a Workshop on "Ethical
Considerations in Scholarship and Science" held in Toronto, November 8 and
9, 1991, which was cosponsored by: New College, Victoria University,
University College and the Centre for Bioethics in the University of
Toronto; Norman Bethune College and MacLaughlin College in York
University; and Science for Peace

This Workshop followed a Symposium on "Constraints on the Freedom of
Scholarship and Science" organized by the Royal Society of Canada, Ottawa,
November 4-6, 1991.  The Symposium was international and
interdisciplinary, being attended by about 20 scientists and scholars from
Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas, as well, of course, as Canadian. 
Four of these overseas participants in the Ottawa Symposium were able to
attend also the Toronto Workshop: 
  Solomon Benatar, Head of Dept of Medicine, U of Capetown, South Africa
  Alex Dantchev, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
  Gerhard Jacob, former president of U Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
  Ladislaw Tondl, Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences
Other participants from Canada (almost all are members of Science for
Peace):
  Bhatia, R:  mathematician           Burkhardt, Helmut: physicist
  Creighton, Phyllis: historian       Ching, Julia: religious & East Asia
                                                       study
  Davis, Chandler: mathematician      Fawcett, Eric: physicist
  Gardner, L.T.: mathematician        Gotlieb, Calvin: computer scientist
  Kushner, Eva: comparative lit.      Lavery, James: bioethicist
  Meslin, Eric: philosopher           Newcombe, Hanna: chemist
  Nicholls, Peter: biologist          Prentice, James: physicist
  Rapoport, Anatol: math/social psych Summers, Craig: psychologist
  Timmerman, Peter: philosopher       Vanderburg William: philosopher 


 APPENDICES

A] Human and financial resources dedicated by the military to scientific
research and development includes around 20% of the world's 2.5 million
research scientists and engineers, while over 50% of the world's research
physicists and engineering scientists are military scientists [SIPRI
Yearbook (Taylor and Francis: London) 1983].  In the U.S.A., for 1989, the
military research and development budget was 66% of the total for Defense,
NIH (Health), NSF (Science), NASA (Space), Energy and Agriculture,
dropping to 50% in 1992., with the same level proposed in the 1993 budget
[Science 255 (1992) 672]

B] The Toronto Resolution was published in a paper entitled, "Working
Group on Ethical Considerations in Science and Scholarship", by Eric
Fawcett in "Accountability in Research", Vol. 3, 1993, 69-72
   A second paper was published entitled, "Do Scientific and Scholarly
Codes of Ethics Take Social Issues into Account?", by Craig Summers, Colin
L. Soskolne, Calvin Gotlieb, Eric Fawcett, and Peter McClusky in
"Accountability in Research", Vol. 4, 1995, 57-68, which examined the
extent to which existing codes are consonant with the 12 principles of The
Toronto Resolution by performing a content analysis on the codes of 21
Ontario-based scientific and scholarly organizations. 

C] The Toronto Resolution was published as a statement stemming from the
   RSC Conference on pp. 259-266 of the Proceedings: "Constraints to
Freedom of Scholarship and Science/ Entraves a la liberte scientifique et
aux sciences", Proceedings of an international symposium /Deliberations du
symposium international de novembre 1991, Edited by/ sous la direction de
Eva Kushner and/et Michael Dence (Ottawa: Royal Society of Canada, 1960.