Scientific Ethics
Created | Updated Nov 1, 2012
Pure Science seeks to describe matter and energy and the laws governing the true and inherent relationships between the two. Scientific knowledge is based on empirical evidence and the dialectic method. Methods for developing scientific knowledge include the systematic observation and measurement of physical phenomenon. Hypotheses based on observation and measurement are tested and modified.
“Scientific ethics is an institutional code of conduct that reflects the chief concerns and goals of science.” - David Resnik
Therefore any practice that subverts the goals of science is unethical science. Truth is obviously the goal of pure science. As this train of thought becomes utopian, the ethics of practical science becomes relative. For the common person, the assumption that science is based on absolute truth may be common, but scientific truth and methods are only relatively ethical.
To make this point clear, consider what many would consider the purest of the Sciences, Physics. Newtonian physics, the physics of General Relativity and the physics of Quantum Mechanics are all three branches of Physics. Each of these three branches yield different answers and are therefore not absolutely true. Each branch violates the test of truth and is therefore unethical science. On the other hand, according to the unique assumptions of each branch, each branch is consistent and true. Newtonian physics is sufficient for many observations on Earth, but in the realm of space travel the errors are measurable. And while General Relativity proves precise in space, it fails in the realm where Quantum Mechanics proves to be accurate.
The problems with this idea of relative ethic are compounded by the real life fact that while academic science, military science, and business science share some common ground, they have different goals and concerns. These different goals and concerns create a need for [or at lest a justification for] different ethics. The ethics of science becomes relative to the environment under which it is conducted. Even within the most altruistic academic faction we find that no two academic institutions have the exact same environments and some are quite different. In the other two domains, secrecy is an important ethic. In military science, secrecy is justified to support the goal of national security. In business science, secrecy is justified in order to support its goal of profit.
Consider six ethical principles of Science [David Resnik]:
- Scientific Honesty
- Carefulness
- Intellectual Freedom
- Openness
- The principle of proper citations
- The principle of public responsibility
Scientific Honesty
“Do not commit scientific fraud, i.e. do not fabricate, fudge, trim, cook, destroy, or misrepresent data.” As black and white as this may seem, history shows that honesty is not to be taken for granted. Funding for Science is usually given for new knowledge rather than for testing or debunking accepted knowledge. When new findings are tested, they are usually done under the guise of developing that body of evidence.
Then there is good old human nature. Why are double blind studies needed? More amazing, why have some double blind studies failed?
Although most people have heard of double-blind studies, few recognize their true significance. It’s not that double-blind studies are hard to understand; rather, that their consequences are difficult to accept. Why? Because double-blind studies tell us that we can’t trust our direct personal experience. This isn’t easy to swallow, but it’s nonetheless true. - Steven Bratman, M.D. http://www.mendosa.com/bratman.htm retrived 2012-10-31
Oops, how dare I use anecdotal evidence to support its own untrustworthiness? It is very hard to design an experiment that is immune to bias, conscious or unconscious. Any bias thus introduced into scientific data makes that data less than honest.
This fact segues nicely to the next principle.
Carefulness
“Strive to avoid careless errors or sloppiness in all aspects of scientific work.” As above, bias is one aspect of Science that is very hard to avoid, but there are many more. Contamination of samples, calibration of instruments and proper consideration for external influences are but a few more problems. Does the temperature of the laboratory affect the results? Could the phase of the moon or time of year bias the data? Did the mental wellbeing of the personal involved vary during the trails? There is no end to the list of concerns to be acknowledged.
Intellectual Freedom
“Scientists should be allowed to pursue new ideas and criticize old ones. They should be free to conduct research they find interesting.” The first problem is that Science is not free, it costs money. Getting money for Science is aggressively completive. New ideas must pander to the sources of that money. Sure, there are some general grants, but even they will dry up over time if due respect for the money is not perceived by the source.
Openness
“…i.e. share data, results, methods, theories, equipment, and so on. Allow people to see your work, be open to criticism.” This rather idealistic principle is very relative in practice. Many interpret this principle to be satisfied if the results are shared upon publishing in a way that protects the investigator’s intellectual property rights. Raw data, and equipment are often not shared.
The Principle of proper Credit or Citations
“Do not plagiarize the work of other scientists, give credit where credit is due (but not where it is not due).” There are fifty shades of grey here if there is one. It comes down to who did what when and with what credentials when deciding what credit must be given. Need I say more? In some places, women are not given proper credit as that is one of the conditions of that work. Many researched x-rays prior, but Wilhelm Röntgen is usually credited as the discoverer of X-rays in 1895, because he was the first to systematically study them.
The Principle of Public Responsibility
“Report research in the public media when; a) the research has an important and direct bearing on human happiness and, b) the research has been sufficiently validated by scientific peers.” The words “important” “happiness” and “sufficiently” are very subjective terms. It is not surprising that the ethics here are subject to wide interpretation. Relative to the profit motive, public responsibility suffers considerably at times.
What has a review of these basic principles revealed? In no facet of scientific endeavor is the pursuit of truth not under serious attack by ulterior motives.
Beyond the efforts of any specific research, consider the overall directions of Science. This too, is subjugated by the power and influence of money and egos. Could cheap energy be realized if it were not the domain of existing power holders? The answer is, maybe and maybe not.
