Scientific Ethics
George Kumi
The University of Maryland, College Park
May 21, 2008
Why have ethics in science?
• What is ‘science’?
Good working definition: It is the process in which
we observe our universe (i.e., conduct experiments)
and use these observations to expand the
understanding of our surroundings
• What is implied by ‘scientific ethics’?
Scientific ethics generally refers to a code of
conduct used in undertaking science
The role of scientific ethics is to maintain public
perception and trust of science
Public perception: why does society value
science?
The role of science in society:
‘Society and its arm of action, government,
understands that science has developed
powerful methods for solving problems’
Sydney Brenner
Science, vol. 282, p1411 (1998)
How can scientists maintain or improve
the public’s perception of science?
• Maintain public trust (responsible research)
• Inform society about the scientific process
Sources of ethical guidance
• How responsible research should be performed:
Professional codes of conduct
• How research should NOT be performed:
Definition of scientific misconduct
[‘fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other serious
deviation from accepted practices in proposing, carrying
out, or reporting results from activities funded by NSF’]
• Mentors/supervisors, co-workers, classes, etc.
Conducting responsible research:
Understanding how science works and what can go wrong
Scientist and the truth:
“The only ethical principle which has made
science possible is that the truth shall be
told all the time.”
C. P. Snow
“The Search”
“Many Scientists Admit to Misconduct” The
Washington Post, June 9, 2005
15.5% Changed a study under pressure from a
funding source
15.3% Dropped data from analysis based on a gut
feeling
12.5% Overlooked others’ use of flawed data
10.8% Withheld details of methodology or results
6.0% Failed to present data that contradicted own
previous research
ETHICS AND SCIENCE
As scientists, we have an ethical obligation to
do "Good Science"
A. How does Science work?
B. How can Science go wrong?
C. What are the cross-checks against error or
deceit?
NATURE
OBSERVATIONS
MODELS
A. HOW SCIENCE WORKS
1. Observe the universe > experiments.
2. Inductively generalize from experiments >
theory, hypothesis
3. Deductively make a prediction based on
hypothesis
4. Revise hypothesis > law, paradigm
HOW CAN SCIENCE GO WRONG?
•
•
•
•
•
Is the sampling representative?
Are there unverified assumptions?
Were the right questions asked?
Are there systematic/subjective errors?
Are the results reproducible?
CASE STUDY #1
The Millikan Oil Drop Experiment
Robert A. Millikan (1868-1953)
CASE STUDY #1
The Millikan Oil Drop Experiment
1909-1913 Robert A. Millikan
1923 Nobel Prize
+ + + + + + + + + + + + ++
qE
_
mg
_______________
qE = weight – buoyant force = 4/3  r3 g ( oil - air)
r obtained from field-free fall-time (Stokes’ Law):
4/3  r3 g ( oil - air) = 6   r v
CASE STUDY #1
The Millikan Oil Drop Experiment
1978 G. Holton (Harvard): Millikan used only the
data that supported his assumption of integral
charge on electron, but wrote that he published
all data.
1974 A. Franklin: Omitted drops were not bad, just
not as precise.
2001 D. Goodstein (CalTech): Defended Millikan
as “using his scientific intuition;” followed
standards of his time
 Did Millikan go wrong?
• Is the sampling representative?
•
•
•
•
•
Are there unverified assumptions?
Were the right questions asked?
Are there systematic/subjective errors?
Is it reproducible?
Are there alternative explanations?
 What could/should Millikan have done?
C. WHAT ARE THE CROSS-CHECKS
AGAINST ERROR OR DECEIT?
(1) Peer review = review before work is
done ->proposal
(2) Referee system = review before work is
published ->paper
(3) Replication = test of repeatability after
work is published
REPLICATION
Why is replication hard?
A. Recipe incomplete
B. Resources unavailable
Research costs money!
C. Motivation lacking
No credit for second experiment
Not interesting enough
D. Original data lacking
Conducting responsible research:
Tackling ethical issues in science
ETHICS PROBLEMS
There is no unique solution!
•
Consider several solutions at same time.
• Collect more information as we go.
• Think creatively.
Sources of ethical guidance
• How responsible research should be performed:
Professional codes of conduct
• How research should NOT be performed:
Definition of scientific misconduct
• Mentors/supervisors, co-workers, classes, etc.
CASE STUDY #2
“Deborah, a third-year graduate student, and
Kathleen, a postdoc, have made a series of
measurements at a new field site on the effect of
deforestation on a oxygen levels in a stream.
When they get back to their own laboratory and
examine the data, they get the following plot. A
newly proposed theory predicts results indicated
by the curve.
During the measurements at the national laboratory,
Deborah and Kathleen observed that there were
instrument fluctuations they could not control or predict.
Furthermore, they discussed their work with another
group doing similar experiments, and they knew that the
other group had gotten results confirming the theoretical
prediction and was writing a manuscript describing their
results. In writing up their own results for publication,
Kathleen suggests dropping the two anomalous data
points near the abscissa (the solid squares) from the
published graph and from a statistical analysis. She
proposes that the existence of the data points be
mentioned in the paper as possibly due to instrument
fluctuations and being outside the expected standard
deviation calculated from the remaining data points.
"These two runs," she argues to Deborah, "were
obviously wrong.“
1. How should the data from the two suspected runs
be handled?
2. Should the data be included in tests of statistical
significance and why?
3. What other sources of information, can Deborah
and Kathleen use to help decide?”
[On Being a Scientist, NAS, http://www.nap.edu/html/obas/]
ETHICS PROBLEMS
There is no unique solution!
•
Consider several solutions at same time.
• Collect more information as we go.
• Think creatively.
Conducting responsible research:
Dealing with other scientists
II. THE SCIENTIST AND "JUSTICE" DEALING WITH OTHER
SCIENTISTS
We have ethical obligations
• to be just to our fellow scientists in recognizing their
contributions
Predecessors
Referees/reviewers
Coworkers/coauthors
• to be just in allowing access to the enterprise of science
Under-represented groups
• to develop the "sacred possibilities" of our students
Mentees
Some ethical questions that arise in science:
• If you see someone committing research misconduct are
you obligated as a scientist to act?
• Would you report a coworker? A supervisor?
• Is good record keeping one of the ethical responsibilities of
a scientist?
• Is it unethical for a scientist not to keep abreast of
a. the code of ethics in his/her field?
b. the advances in his/her field?
• Are all coauthors of a scientific paper equally to blame for
any fabricated data in the paper?
adapted from F. Macrina, Scientific Integrity