I.
Scientific Ethics—an Introduction
A.
Source Documents
1.
2.
B.
Science is a Social Activity
1.
2.
3.
4.
C.
“On Being a Scientist”—National Academy of Sciences, 1995
“The Chemist’s Code”—American Chemical Society, 1994
Draw from past scientists; contribute to future work
Students, technicians, postdocs, PI’s all work together
Can have significant impact on society
Can result in significant reward from society
Science is frustrating
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Failed experiments
Failed hypotheses
Disagreements with colleagues and competitors
Competition for money and recognition
Dependence on other people for your success
D. Flawed Human Process must become Enduring Truth
1. Creativity is countered with skepticism
2. New ideas are questioned and empirically tested
3. Must be able to convince others of your view of “how it works”
E. Science and Ethics
1. Interplay of these forces result in hard decisions for scientists
a.
b.
c.
d.
How do I treat this anomalous data?
How do my values influence my research?
Who should share credit for this work?
Is that an honest error? Negligence? Misconduct?
2. Epistemology = study of the nature, origin, scope, of knowledge
a. What is knowledge
b. How is knowledge acquired
c. What do people know
3. Society and Science
a. Non-scientist play an increasing role in assessing science
b. More social importance = more accountability to society
II.
Social Foundations of Science
A.
The complexity of science
1.
2.
B.
No single scientific method
Not separate from technology, society, and personality
Individual knowledge versus knowledge
1.
2.
3.
Science is almost always collaborative
Large advances are almost always individual
Transfer from individual to society
a.
b.
c.
d.
4.
C.
Informal talking with colleagues
Formal collaborations
Oral presentations at meetings
Written papers in journals
Constant review and revision results from these interactions
Results of this mechanism
1.
2.
3.
Validation of scientific advances
Generate accepted procedures and techniques
Guard against deliberate or accidental errors
III. Experimental Techniques and Data Treatment
A.
Generally Accepted Methods
1.
2.
3.
Make data independently verifiable
Eliminate bias
Examples
a.
b.
4.
Cold-fusion
a.
b.
c.
5.
Statistical tests of significance
Double-blind studies
Claims of energy from fusion at room temperature
Implausible results from what is known of fusion; need extra proof
Techniques didn’t eliminate errors; couldn’t be replicated
“Frontier” research is inherently hard to prove
a.
b.
c.
d.
Methods must be very clear and reproducible
New methods need to be developed and verified
New methods and new knowledge develop together
Methods can be fallible
i.
Van Maanen’s methods on spiral nebulae showed in galaxy
ii. Hubble used new, larger telescope showed not
iii. Not an ethical problem, just a limitation of the method available
IV. Values in Science
A.
Individual values greatly effect their science
1.
2.
Curiosity, intuition, creativity are all key to scientific discovery
Judgment in how to use those characteristics influence:
a.
b.
c.
d.
B.
Competing Hypotheses
1.
2.
Several different explanations might work
How do you choose which one to pursue
a.
b.
c.
C.
Which problem to pursue—Interpretation of data
What conclusions to draw
Whom to work with and how
How and when to discuss or disclose findings
Must be internally consistent
Should lead to accurate experimental predictions
Unify disparate observations (especially if experimentation is difficult)
Examples
1.
2.
3.
Einstein and Q. Mech: “God does not play dice” with the universe.
Lyell and Incremental Geology: Eternal God favors uniform history
Eugenics: inferiority of races, rejection of Mendelian genetics
D.
Should we take value out of Science?
1.
2.
3.
E.
Tempering the effect of values on science
1.
2.
3.
V.
Desire to do good is a value and a scientific principle
Honesty and objectivity are good (and good for science)
Universe is understandable is a value (and good for science)
The requirement of experimentation: If a hypothesis doesn’t stand
up to experiment, it is rejected
The social mechanism: others must understand, test, and accept
an idea before it becomes part of scientific knowledge
Self-examination: understand and deal with your own values
Conflicts of Interest
A.
Multiple values may compromise scientific judgement
1.
2.
B.
Financial interest in a company might influence data interpretation
Referee a paper that scoops your work
Most institutions have “conflict-of-interest” policies to follow
1.
2.
Disclosure of the conflict
Outside monitoring of research or not doing the research at all
VI. Publication
A.
The balancing act
1.
2.
B.
Accuracy of the data
Priority and credit for the author(s)
The Peer-Review System
1.
2.
Henry Oldenburg, Royal Society of London
Steps
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
C.
Prior to publication
1.
2.
3.
D.
Paper is submitted to an editor
Paper is assigned to experts in the field to review for accuracy
If “Peers” consent, the paper is published
Publication established priority for the discovery
Citation of others ideas until they become “common knowledge”
Publication priority over discovery--only after published is it useful
Research is “intellectual property”—some share, some don’t
Patenting must take place prior to publication
Should have the right to confirm accuracy and interpritation
Post-publication: obligation to share data; even samples
E. Non-Peer Reviewed Publication
1.
2.
3.
4.
Posters, abstracts, invited talks, meeting presentations, internet
Speeds and improves communication
Propagates errors, weakens confidence
News releases
a. By-passes peer review, directly to the public
b. Errors may not be caught
c. Weakens public confidence if not significant, or in error
F. Patents
1. Government grants temporary exclusivity, if results made public
a. Makes useful technology available to the public
b. Protects industry from others making money from their investment
2. Industry sponsored research may be held up from publication
3. Universities and other Institutions now have publishing policies
G. Classified or Otherwise Sensitive Research
1. Scientist may need to get validation other than by publication
a. Unclassified summaries
b. Visiting committees
2. Should the research be done at all if dangerous to disclose (virus)
H. Ethical problems related to publication
1. Performing substandard work to rush lots of publication
a. Higher quality publications are more valuable than many publications
b. “More people can count than can read.” James McCormick
c. Universities beginning to limit number pubs considered for tenure
2. Publishing the same data in two journals
a. Usually not the exact same data, but should have been one paper
b. Clearly wrong, and done to increase number of publications
3. Always publishing short papers with little detail, not full papers
a. Least publishable unit = minimum data to get published
b. Many more “communications” than full papers is suspect
4. Other considerations
a.
b.
c.
d.
Will someone scoop me if I hold on for a full paper?
These students and postdocs need publications now
My funding agencies want to see publication before they renew
I’m giving up on this project, but I’ve got enough to publish something
a. Publish as a “Note” rather than a communication
b. Make data available in other ways
VII. Allocating Credit
A.
Citation of other’s work
1.
Purposes
a.
b.
c.
2.
Failure to cite others (or to cite them correctly)
a.
b.
c.
B.
Acknowledge previous or related work done by others
i.
Conflicting data or hypotheses
ii. Supporting data or hypotheses
iii. Additional work in the same area
Direct reader to related information
Place your paper in context with the current state of the field
Hard feelings; calls for corrections
Hurting others careers: citations = reward for work, grants, promotion
May be excluded from interaction with peers—reputation is hurt
Authorship and Acknowledgement
1.
How may authors?
a.
b.
c.
d.
Historically, often just one
Current collaborative nature of science means single author rare now
Field dependent: Chemistry: 5-10 is common
High Energy Physics or Genome Sequencing: hundreds
2.
Who’s the most important author?
a.
b.
c.
3.
Avoiding problems
a.
b.
c.
4.
In some fields, the order listed is the order of contribution
In Chemistry, it’s often this way, with PI listed last
Some journals only list authors alphabetically
Know going into a collaboration how authorship will be done
Include anyone who has contributed—intellectually, or physically
i.
Instrument technicians (often Ph.D.’s) are often acknowledged
ii. Colleagues who only discussed the idea are acknowledged
iii. X-ray crystallographers seem always to be authors
Avoid “honorary” authorship
Responsibility of authors
a.
b.
Each author is accountable for the results
Each author should sign off on the results and agree with conclusions
VIII. Error and Negligence
A.
Results are always provisional
1.
2.
B.
New data or new methods can change your interpritations
All physical measurements are subject to error
Types of errors
1.
2.
Random errors can’t be accounted for or corrected
Systematic errors can be discovered and accounted for
a.
b.
c.
3.
Instrumental, environmental errors
Human errors—honest mistakes
If discovered after publication, publish a correction—won’t be
condemned
Negligence = haste, carelessness, inattention
a.
b.
Doesn’t meet the standards of professional scientists
Reputation will suffer; public confidence is lowered
IX. Scientific Misconduct
A.
Deception
1.
2.
3.
B.
Making up data or results
Changing or falsifying data or results
Using someone else’s ideas as yours = plagiarism
Consequences
1.
Minor ethical lapses
a.
b.
2.
Scientific misconduct
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
C.
Can harm other people (medical research)
Wastes tax dollars
Damages the reputation and values of science to society; funding
Destroys personal reputation, livelihood, research career
Can be punished by the legal system (in rare cases)
Procedure
1.
2.
D.
Handled within the scientific community
Peer review, administrative action, tenure review
Preliminary Investigation, usually be responsible institution
Adjudication: Due Process to accused
Other: fraud, harassment, tampering—normal legal system
X.
Responding to Ethical Violations
1.
You have an obligation to act
a.
b.
c.
2.
What to do
a.
b.
c.
d.
3.
Easiest to do nothing
Power differential makes it difficult to act
Accusations are very powerful—be certain of the violation
Discuss it with friend, advisor, chair, etc… to get advice
If you proceed, verbal complaints can often be dealt with easier
Written complaints will seriously effect careers
Institutions usually have a system in place, but rarely used
Contacts
a.
b.
National Science Foundation (NSF): Office of Inspector General
National Institutes of Health (NIH): Office of Research Integrity
XI. The Chemists Code of Conduct
A. American Chemical Society: www.chemistry.org
B. Responsibilities to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
The Public—serve the public interest
The Science of Chemistry—thorough, accurate, advancement
The Profession—ethical considerations
The Employer—honest effort for employer’s interests
Employees—fairness, respect, safety, credit
Students—obligation to society, treat with respect
Associates—credit, respect, encouragement
Clients—faithful, confidentially, honestly, charge fairly
The Environment—understand consequences, protect