Giving Compass' Take:

• Maggie Koerth-Baker discusses the limitations on rouge scientists - laws, financial incentives, and norms - and why these limitations will not prevent every unethical expierenemt. 

• How can funders work to prevent unethical experimentation? How can these restrictions avoid preventing legitimate experimentation? 

• Learn about the ethics of studying infectious diseases in poor countries. 

Can the public control science that leaves us with permanent and unenviable consequences? Recent news suggests that the answer is “not really.” There are tools that we can use to place limits on scientists and the choices they make. But none of them can fully, reliably, put the public in the driver’s seat. And maybe that’s OK.

The mad scientists of the past — both the imaginary and the all too real — have been on my mind. On Nov. 25, MIT Technology Review broke the story of He Jiankui, a Chinese researcher who claims to have created the first genetically edited human babies. He says he used a gene-editing technology called CRISPR to deactivate a gene called CCR5, granting twin baby girls resistance to HIV, smallpox, and cholera.

Whether he actually did this is unclear. He apparently experimented largely in secret. The Associated Press has reported that he deceived employers, colleagues and even some of his own research subjects. He hasn’t published any of his work, as scientists typically do, so it can’t be independently confirmed. At an international genetics conference on Nov. 28, He told other scientists that he was proud of his work. And last week, he told the Harvard Crimson that he was working on a rebuttal paper to address the ethical concerns.

This kind of edgy science will happen again, and not just in the biological sciences.

Science today is more publicly regulated than it has ever been, said Alta Charo, professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin. The law, the marketplace and science’s community norms each provide a layer of protection. But each is imperfect.

Legal restrictions on science basically began as a byproduct of World War II. Restrictions on science imposed by financial incentives are also slippery. Governments have exerted control over research through rules around what they will and won’t fund, Charo said.

The final limiting force is one you might recognize from politics: norms. You might be able to skirt the law. You may find the funding to do ethically dubious research. But will you be able to look your peers in the eyes — and keep your job — in the morning?

Read the full article about rouge scientists by Maggie Koerth-Baker at FiveThirtyEight.