Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:51:44.394Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Introduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Robert L. Zimdahl*
Affiliation:
Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523; [email protected]

Abstract

This symposium is a first in the history of our society. We have never before devoted a portion of the annual meeting to formal consideration of the ethical aspects of our work. It is significant to me that after 38 annual meetings, 42 years of existence, and 45 volumes of our journal, we have begun to discuss the ethics of weed science. I applaud the vision of the Board of Directors that provided funding to bring two of our speakers to the meeting. The Board has always provided capable management of the society's affairs. By management, I mean that we have been well organized to proceed in the direction we are headed. Voting to hold this symposium and providing funding is, in my view, an act of leadership, by which I mean, thinking about moving in a new direction, in a direction not dictated by the past. When disciplines proactively begin to examine the ethical dimensions of their science and technology, society may begin to believe that scientists recognize and act upon their social responsibilities. This would be a welcome and refreshing development in these days when public distrust and disillusionment with science may be as high as they have ever been (Lockwood 1997).

Type
Symposium
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Lockwood, J. A., 1997. Competing values and moral imperatives: an overview of ethical issues in biological control. J. Agric. Hum. Values 14: 205210.Google Scholar