Research Ethics for Scientists

A Companion for Students

C. Neal Stewart

• Editorial: Wiley
• Año: 2011
• ISBN:
  9781119979869
• Edición: 1
• Categoría: Biological Sciences
• Categoría: Biology

Research Ethics for Scientists is about best practices in all the major areas of research management and practice that are common to scientific researchers, especially those in academia. Aimed towards the younger scientist, the book critically examines the key areas that continue to plague even experienced and well-meaning science professionals.

For ease of use, the book is arranged in functional themes and units that every scientist recognizes as crucial for sustained success in science; ideas, people, data, publications and funding. These key themes will help to highlight the elements of successful and ethical research as well as challenging the reader to develop their own ideas of how to conduct themselves within their work.

Tackles the ethical issues of being a scientist rather than the ethical questions raised by science itself

• Case studies used for a practical approach
• Written by an experienced researcher and PhD mentor
• Accessible, user-friendly advice
• Indispensible companion for students and young scientists

Chapter 1

Research Ethics: The Best Ethical Practices Produce the Best Science

ABOUT THIS CHAPTER

• Research science is becoming increasingly complex and riddled with pitfalls and temptations.
• Global competition and cooperation will likely change the face of science in the future.
• Science is an iterative loop of ideas, funding, data, publication, in turn, leading back to more ideas.
• Ethics can be a guide toward best practices.
• Best scientific practices lead to the best science results and discoveries.
• Best practices and mentorship produce the best scientists.

It seems that it is increasingly difficult to be a research scientist. The number and complexity of rules, electronic forms, journals and publishing, and government and university regulations are ever-growing. The competition for funding is often ruthless, and the criteria exacted to warrant publication in good journals also seem to be on the rise. Indeed, not just the pressure to publish, but the pressure to publish the ``right'' papers in the ``right'' journals is also increasing. Nominally, the preparation of proposals and publications has been ostensibly made simpler by computer technology, yet the potential for real- and faux-research productivity has also been enabled by computers. Technology is a double-edged sword: enabling high levels of knowledge creation and dissemination, but also enabling research fraud and shoddy science. Thus, ethical dilemmas seem to be appearing at an increasingly rapid pace, with research misconduct regularly being the subject of news articles in Science, Nature, and The Scientist. I wouldn't be surprised when and if these scientific periodicals hire ethics reporters who will specialise in reporting misbehaviour. Even people who don't keep up with science news are familiar with the term “cold fusion” and the infamous stem cell cloning and data fabrication case from South Korea. While the most notorious cases of misconduct have occurred in higher-profile fields of science, such as physics and biomedicine, it is clear that no area of science is immune to unethical behaviour (Angell 2001; Judson 2004).

We live in a “multiscience” world. Multitasking, multidisciplinary work and multi-authored works, to name a few, are ingrained in the fabric of science culture and certainly multi-multi is expected in order to succeed and move up the scientific ranks. The isolated small laboratory with the lone professor and few staff (see Weaver 1948 for a perspective) has given way to larger labs interacting in complex collaborations in interdisciplinary science. Complex relationships are accompanied with tough decisions regarding authorship, dicing the funding pie, and how to treat privileged data. And immense amounts of data at that, which are shared (or not) and curated in useful and meaningful ways (or not). In all this mix, the temptation to cheat, cut corners, and misbehave seems to be at its zenith for scientists wishing to compete at the highest levels of science, striving to get tenure and become rich and famous. Of course, one alternative to honest competition and competence, as seems to be the case for some scientists, is to con their way to the top. Cheating is front page news in business, politics and sports sections alike. Perhaps a bigger problem to outright fraud is cutting ethical corners. Thus, we have an apparent paradox – the antithesis of this chapter title – that the best (or highly rewarded) science is compromised with seemingly endless ethical issues. Whereas the lone professor and his or her graduate student worked in simpler and more linear paths in the past, modern science seems far too convoluted for its own good (Munck 1997). How can we win? How can sound science prevail in the face of all the obstacles?

If the situation is not complicated enough, it seems that there is growing concern about the abuse of graduate students and postdocs by their mentors. Some senior scientists feel that coercion, micromanagement and general overbearance of their trainees is an effective means to ensure high productivity. While research misconduct garners headlines, causing all sorts of angst upon university administrators, it might be the case that defective mentorship is actually a much weightier problem than outright cheating (Shamoo and Resnik 2003). But is it possible that these two problems could be interconnected (Anderson et al. 1997)? Mentorship is a current hot topic in science that has spawned cottage industries, self-help books and strategising among faculty members and university administrators alike. Everyone knows that finding good mentors is crucial for the young (and sometimes not-so-young) scientist wishing to be propelled into a sustainable career in the academic world of research and teaching or the private sector of research. Mentors share the unwritten rules of science. Mentors explain how these rules are intermeshed with research ethics and advise on best practices. Mentors help their students and postdoctoral trainees fulfil their dreams (should their dreams involve being a scientist). Bad mentors can shatter dreams and stagnate their trainees’ careers. But perhaps even the best mentoring is not effective in deterring certain research misconduct.

Research misconduct is a major threat to science. As much as some scientists wish to point fingers at politicians and the public as the principal bad players responsible for the lack of appreciation and funding that science deserves, I think the real enemy is within our own ranks. Indeed, Brian Martin (1992) maintains that modern science, the “power structure of science,” is to blame for much misrepresentation in research. Essentially scientists are not allowed to “tell it like it is” and must tell publishable stories; (he refers to the stories as “myths”). Research misconduct is insidiously damaging to the credibility of science and scientists in society since it erodes trust – not only trust in the individual researchers but in the system of science itself. Self-patrolling the profession from within is needed to reverse this damaging trend; the major pinch points for detecting research misconduct are at the levels of grant applications and manuscript review.

The ethical dilemmas in data collection, collaboration, publication and granting are likely to become even more complex and vexing in the future. More than ever, graduate students and postdocs must master more techniques, technologies and concepts in order to become and stay competitive in science. At the same time, young scientists must generate good ideas and raise increasingly scarce funds to make their research a reality. Global competition from scientists in developing countries, especially in Asia, is a new fact of life for the researchers in the West, who were formerly accustomed to the deck being stacked in their favour. At the same time, researchers in China, India, the Middle East, and other rapidly developing countries are enjoying increased levels of new funding. These new resources are coupled with even higher government and institutional expectations not only for results and publications, but groundbreaking results in publications in the most prestigious journals (e.g., Qiu 2010). From East to West, being a practicing scientist is certainly not getting any easier.

I don't wish to paint a picture of doom and gloom, however. Honestly, I can think of no more exciting time to be a scientific researcher than today with the booming innovations and opportunities to be found around every corner. We can also innovate and connect with other scientists and stakeholders across the globe in nearly instantaneous fashion these days. Certainly, the positive science news outweighs the negative news and its complications, but there is great consensus among scientists and others that the broken parts are in need of attention and fixing (Titus et al. 2008).

About four years ago, a colleague and I became convinced, for all of the above reasons (as well as others discussed later in this chapter) that a new course at my university needed to be taught on research ethics to graduate students, thus necessity spawned my new foray into ethics. After a couple of years teaching our new graduate course that met for one hour one day per week for 14 weeks, I decided that a book of this sort could be helpful to support the course (see Appendix for our syllabus), but also as a general help to young scientists just starting their research careers, and undergraduate students contemplating a career in scientific research. This book could be viewed as part guidebook, part virtual mentor, and part friendly polemic that should be helpful in addressing pragmatic problems that all research scientists experience. While virtual mentoring was part of my motivation, to substitute any book for finding a real mentor would be a mistake, which is one main reason a couple of chapters on mentorship are included. This book is on research ethics – a users’ guide to success in science by following the rules that scientists largely agree are requisites for success. This book will not focus on greater issues of morality or bioethics – these are vastly different topics than the one we're embarking on here. In addition, many, if not all the chapters in this book, are subjects in their own right; the deep expertise of researchers in the social sciences, philosophy and education.

And with that, I'll state up front that I don't have all the answers. I think I do ask most of the pertinent questions, but like most things in life, asking the questions is a good bit easier than answering them. One of my main goals in asking the questions is to enable the readers to judge themselves with regards to best practices. When I started in science, I expected that there would be one right way to do experiments illuminated clearly, then analyse the data and write up the paper. It didn't take long to learn that this was not the case, and indeed, I judged myself then and ever-frequently now. Science is very creative and individualistic. There are many ways to answer scientific questions, and many ways also to go wrong. That is not to say that we can't learn from our mistakes and at least not doom ourselves in repeating the same mistakes over and over again.

So, I urge the reader to think about the questions and the answers and think about ideas expressed here, especially analysing the case studies for current and future action where applicable. Talk about these issues with your colleagues and mentors. If the topics in this book are discussed more widely in labs, hallways, and classrooms, then the best ethical practices will be advanced throughout fields of science. After I began teaching on research ethics, I found the new lively hallway discussions about various topics related to our course content was proof positive that our new effort towards promoting best practices was worthwhile.

Judge yourself

Why are you interested in research ethics?

What are your motivations for pursuing research?

In what ways are these motivations synergistic or antagonistic with one another?

Morality vs ethics

What is the difference between morality and ethics? If morality is the foundation that ethics is built upon, research ethics is the top floor that is visible from the air. That moral foundation often has religious or spiritual ingredients and is engrained in substance that is far beyond the scope of this book. Ethics can be considered a sort of practical morality or professional morality that enables boundaries for the work of research to be played fairly. That is, if we think of problems not so much as in terms of right and wrong, but in terms of ought and ought not, then I think we understand how to parse morality vs. ethics. Many people are uncomfortable discussing morality, religion and politics. In contrast, most scientists are happy to share their opinions on ethics of their fields and science in general. It's ok if we don't all agree on the fine points of all the ethical considerations posed in this book. I worry more about the big picture.

One way to think about research ethics is in terms of best practices in conducting all aspects of research science – to maximise benefits and minimise harm. A very important ethics concept is non malfeasance – doing no harm (Barnbaum and Byron 2001). While the definitions and delineations on research ethics might seem a bit squishy, let's keep in mind that there is plenty of room for opinion. This book is about ethics much more than morality, and practical research ethics as opposed to theoretical ethics that would interest a philosopher. This book is for scientists. This book is about integrity in performing research. Summed up, this book is about scientific integrity.

Indeed, for our purposes here, this book is also about how to be a successful scientist. It can easily be argued that philosophers have thought about ethics for much longer, (e.g., Plato and other ancient Greek philosophers) than have scientists thought about science (a word not coined until the 1800s (Shamoo and Resnik 2003)). There are many viewpoints that philosophers have taken to conceptualise ethics. A few of these are utilitarianism, deontology and virtue ethics.

Utilitarianism is an example of teleological theory, which is based on outcomes rather than process. Utilitarianism seeks to do the most good for the most people; it is important to consider others and not just yourself. The utilitarian essentially does cost-benefit analysis to guide a person's path and decisions, and one that is widely implemented these days as a thought process (Barnbaum and Byron 2001).

Deontology is the ethics of duty. It strives to universalise rules that apply to everyone in guiding actions. One example here is the Golden Rule (or the rule of reciprocity), which is stated as, “Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.” “Morality as a public system” (Gert 1997 p. 24) applies to research ethics in that all scientists know the rules to be followed and is not irrational for the people who agree to participate in the system to follow the rules.

Virtue ethics focuses on living the good life. In this system, a person ought to decide to do what a virtuous person should do in all circumstances. Similar to the other two systems above, virtue ethics considers the potential for harm and av...