WASHINGTON—A couple of weeks after it was announced that scientists had sequenced the genome for a human organism, I heard a radio commentator ask a government official, "Do you think our science has gotten ahead of our ethics?"

This wasn’t an odd question; in fact, it was a quite appropriate question, and the subject of many writers’ musings, from Ellen Goodman to Cal Thomas. (By the way, those two syndicated columnists who rarely agree on much were in total synch saying that we must be careful as we travel this amazing and potentially dangerous trail upon which genetic biochemistry is leading us.)

What did strike me as odd is that this question of anything "getting ahead of our ethics" never seems to be asked when the topic is economics or business. Instead, we hear frequently of companies and corporations—or even government agencies—making "necessary business decisions" or "better business decisions." It’s rarely asked if those decisions are "getting ahead of our ethics." Thus, when companies merge and thousands of workers in the merging companies must be laid off, no one asks, "Do you think our business decision is getting ahead of our ethics?"

When Chrysler Motors announced that within two years it planned to phase out its manufacture of Plymouth vehicles, a decision that undoubtedly will put many autoworkers on the streets, no commentator, corporate or government official asked, "Do you think our production policy is getting ahead of our ethics?"

When our military is faced with a drawdown and hundreds of mid-level enlistees or mid-level officers, many of them within striking distance of the magic 20-year retirement goal, have to be "riffed," as the jargon goes (a rif is a reduction in force), nobody is heard to ask, "Do you think our riffing is getting ahead of our ethics?"

When several HMOs announced recently that they would no longer be providing service to patients on Medicare, the decision was explained as a "necessary business decision," and no one that I heard discussing the issues asked, "Do you think our health-care thinking is getting ahead of our ethics?"

Of all the reports I’ve heard in the past few years about the Fed attempting to determine whether or not interest rates should be raised, I’ve yet to hear anyone ask, "Do you think our economic policy is getting ahead of our ethics?"

Let’s face it, folks, when it comes to business and economics, our typical "bottom line" mentality that focuses on profit leaves little or no room for asking, "Do you think our bottom line has gotten ahead of our ethics?"

I’ve seen how "necessary business decisions" can destroy. When I was a teenager, one of my favorite uncles—one, in fact, who had lost four fingers in an industrial accident at the company for which he worked—was within a year of retirement age after spending almost 25 years with the company when he was summarily dismissed. I believe he received some compensation, but it was a pittance compared to what he had been banking on receiving in retirement. To be sure, in this day and age there are some safeguards against such forms of ruthless management, but I’d bet my 401k that no one ever asked, "Do you think our dismissal policy has gotten ahead of our ethics?"

The problem, of course, is that we’ve allowed general "business policy" or healthy "economic policy" to forge well ahead of our ethics. Nowhere was this mentality more apparent than in the support that President Clinton received after his impeachment. The argument almost always went to the bottom line: The economy has never been better. Who cares what he does in his personal life? When we begin thinking this way, we have allowed our economics to get ahead of our ethics.

Many modern newspapers have allowed the pursuit of profit to get ahead of the ethical pursuit of truth. Newspaper management decisions increasingly are based on profit margins and financial reports.

Practically any management policy, no matter how hurtful to employees or to the pursuit of the truth, can be justified if it contributes to the economic growth or financial health of the publication. And few, if any, ever ask, "Are our management goals getting ahead of our ethics?"

Ethical questions in journalism are almost always shunted to the shoulders of editors, reporters and photographers. Rarely are management’s ethics discussed and challenged. As large media companies continue to absorb smaller publications, the discussion always ranges over dollars and cents and rarely if ever on the personal havoc that is wrought by profit-driven corporate growth.

Each time I think of this question I’m reminded of a little exchange from the 1998 movie, "You’ve got mail," where ruthless book sales executive Joe Fox (played by Tom Hanks) says to little bookstore owner Kathleen Kelly (played by Meg Ryan), as his corporate bookseller is undermining and absorbing all the little booksellers around town, and he knows he’s putting Kelly’s store out of business: "This is nothing personal."

Kelly responds with, "Of course it’s personal; everything is personal."

Similarly, I think we can say, "everything involves ethics." In that spirit, we need to remind ourselves that making a profit involves morality and too often our profit motives get ahead of our ethics.