Science
(Problems printing? Click here.)
NOT REVISED
Scientific Ethos. (Or Ethics.)
Broadly speaking, a scientist is following scientific ethos if he is doing whatever he reasonably and ethically can to make sure that the scientific method is applied properly by his community, and violating the scientific ethos to the extent that he falls short of that. Thus there are two aspects to the ethos of science. First, scientists must make sure that they do not violate the ordinary rules of morality. They must not lie to obtain funding, must not experiment on human subjects without their consent, must not lie about their results, must not rob banks to fund their work, and so on. But beyond this, there is a deeper level to scientific ethos. Beyond ordinary ethics, scientific integrity also requires a strong commitment to the scientific method under all circumstances. It is important to note that this commitment must be to the method itself, and not to any particular person's idea of what the method has produced. It might be thought that a scientist should always be willing to admit that he has been proved wrong when the evidence against his hypothesis becomes overwhelming. However, is often difficult for a scientist in that position to tell whether or not the evidence really is overwhelming, and evidence that appears overwhelming can sometimes turn out to be wrong after all. The history of science contains many examples of scientists who turned out to be right even after every other scientist agreed that they were wrong. Scientific ethics allows, and even encourages, sticking to your guns in the face of universal opposition. The fact that every other scientist in the world disagrees with you does not, by itself, mean that you should change your mind. As long as you have what you honestly take to be reasonable grounds to believe in your theory you can, and perhaps should, defend that theory as best you can. And science forgives honest mistakes. What science, and society, should not forgive is the defense of a theory by dishonest and anti-scientific means. Here are some examples of violations of scientific integrity at this deep level.
1. Denial that contradictory work exists. If a scientist says publicly that there is no explanation for a certain object, when he knows, or could easily find out, that other scientists have produced published work that offers an explanation or explanations for that object, he is acting without integrity. It would be a different thing if he admitted that those explanations exist, and then gave a reasonable basis for disagreeing with those explanations. It is a normal part of science to criticize the work of others. It is a violation of scientific ethics to pretend that that work does not exist.
2. Arbitrary or cavalier dismissal of other people's work. If a scientist says publicly that the work of other scientists is inadequate when he knows, or could easily find out, that the majority of scientists who are qualified to judge such work find it to be of acceptable quality. In such circumstances, it is perfectly acceptable for a scientist to say that he disagrees with this work, especially if he can offer a reasonable basis for criticism, but he shows no integrity if he claims that the work should be dismissed or ignored when it has in fact not been credibly discredited by anyone.
3. Nit-picking. A scientist demonstrates a lack of integrity when he attempts to impose a stricter than normal standard on specific works by other scientists. That is, he lacks integrity if he argues that somebody else's work should be dismissed because it has flaws or omissions of a kind that are not normally considered serious. Scientists are expected to criticize each others' work, but they are also expected to hold everyone to exactly the same standard. Raising the bar for some particular piece of work violates scientific integrity.
4. Question-dodging. A scientist demonstrates a lack of integrity when he persistently avoids or otherwise fails to answer important questions about his own work. If a scientist claims that a certain process takes place under certain conditions, he is obliged to explain just how this process works. If he has no idea how it could possibly work, he should say so, and thereby implicitly admit that his theory is seriously flawed. There is nothing wrong with advocating a theory that you know and admit is flawed. However, it demonstrates a lack of integrity to attempt to hide that flaw by avoiding questions about it.
5. Avoiding the scientific process. When a person who purports to be a scientist promotes his favorite theory through the news media and/or the political process, rather than through the normal route of attempting publication in peer-reviewed journals, then he is not acting as a scientist. It is true that the scientific process does not work perfectly, and that professional jealousy and prejudice sometimes corrupt the peer-review process, but it is not true that the whole process is corrupted. And there is no justification for avoiding the process entirely. A person who purports to be a scientist, but who does not even attempt to publish in a peer-reviewed journal before going to the press and/or the political process is seriously violating scientific ethics.
6. Anti-scientific thinking. In my view, a scientist demonstrates a lack of integrity when he advocates changing the standards of science to protect his favorite theory. It would be one thing to argue that a particular standard of science was wrong based on evidence that following that standard has generally failed to produce good results. If a certain rule is normally considered to be part of good scientific practice, and it can be shown that following that rule has both failed to advance science and has had a demonstrably negative affect on scientific progress, that would constitute a good reason to abandon the rule. If, however, the only thing that prompts the scientist to say that this standard is not a good one is the fact that his pet theory doesn't happen to meet that standard, then that "scientist" is definitely a scum-sucking weasel.
I personally believe that we have good reason to think that people who violate scientific integrity in a serious way are doing something morally wrong. At the very least, they are being dishonest. And this dishonesty can have serious consequences. For instance people who violate scientific ethics can obtain grant money that they're really not entitled to, which means that other, more deserving projects don't get the money they need. Violations of scientific ethics can result in delays in developing useful drugs, which means that some people will die who might otherwise have lived. Lack of integrity by people in the educational system can lead to serious distortions of scientific education, and lack of integrity by scientists can lead to a false aura of scientific respectability for theories and ideas that completely lack scientific validity.
http://www.kepler.edu/main/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
http://newenergytimes.com/news/2006/NET16.htm#d10
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Copyright © 2006 by Martin C. Young
This Site is Proudly Hosted
By.
