Why Scientists Don'D Do Ethics and Why the Should

, | Why Scientist Don’t do Ethics and Why it is Important That They do | Ethical Issues in Science | |

|

Scientists don’t deal with ethics because they are more involved with the science and getting results. The pressure of working in that field is put on them to get results for their careers and getting more grant money. They should deal with ethics for the betterment of all that. If the public believes that scientist are unethical and can’t be trusted, the research they do will have to be more heavily regulated, money will not be given to certain types of research, and their careers will ultimately suffer because they can do their work and the scientific community looks down on people who break the unwritten code of ethics.
There are many unethical problems that scientist face that are not deemed illegal but are part of their everyday research and they are not punished for because it is not a part of the FFP. Which is the falsification, fabrication, and/or plagiarism of data in research. (1) These are the issues that will get a scientist fired and/or discredited. These are the things that the gaze of the public’s eye falls upon and where mistrust in science comes from. Although these things may be written as regulations for scientists to follow, they must also follow a set of unwritten rules and ethics within research. Some of these include: * Publishing the same paper in two different journals without telling the editors * Submitting the same paper to different journals without telling the editors * Not informing a collaborator of your intent to file a patent in order to make sure that you are the sole inventor * Including a colleague as an author on a paper in return for a favor even though the colleague did not make a serious contribution to the paper * Discussing with your colleagues confidential data from a paper that you are reviewing for a journal * Trimming outliers from a data set without discussing your reasons in paper * Using an inappropriate statistical technique in order to enhance the significance of your research * Bypassing the peer review process and announcing your results through a press conference without giving peers adequate information to review your work * Conducting a review of the literature that fails to acknowledge the contributions of other people in the field or relevant prior work Most of the things listed above would also violate different professional ethics codes or institutional policies. However, they do not fall into the narrow category of actions that the government classifies as research misconduct. (2)The problem in these research misconducts, is that if scientist do not follow these unwritten rules they are not only hurting their own career within the scientific community but also the view the public has on science and research.
In a study on why scientists do have ethical dilemas, it states that there is only 0.01% of scientist that violate the FFP standard and all others are violations of the unwritten rules and “mundane” problems of everyday work. Some of the not-so-serious issues include -improper acknowledgment of collaborators, slow scientific progress, undermine trust in the research process, waste public funds, and increase external regulation of science. When policymakers limit their concern to the prevention of infrequently occurring cases of FFP, they overlook the many ways scientists compromise their work in an effort to accommodate to the way science is funded and scientists are trained. The pressures placed on theses scientists drive them to bend the rules more often than not. (1)
“Cases of misconduct are not simple matters to evaluate. One source of concern is confusion within the field of science about just what constitutes a punishable infringement of ethical standards. In the fields of engineering, law, and medicine, clear written guidelines exist for defining ethical conduct. Although some particularly difficult cases may test the limits of these guidelines, most do not. In scientific research, a written code of conduct is not available. The federal government and individual institutions have been struggling to clarify the standards under which misconduct can be adjudicated. The central definitions that delineate misconduct in science include fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. However, these are confused by other less clear categories of misconduct, which include “other questionable behavior” or “other misconduct.” Within this confusion of definitions it is not always obvious to students or faculty where and toward whom their obligations lie. “(3)

“Complicating the confusion generated by the way in which we define research misconduct is the teaching process by which students routinely learn about the ethical obligations of their profession.
Traditionally a scientist trains with a single mentor. From this mentoring relationship the graduate student is expected to learn about scientific method, the body of knowledge that constitutes the specific field of science she is studying, and the “institution” of science. What is learned about the institution of science includes knowledge of the mechanics of obtaining funding, information on the writing of grants and papers, and an understanding of the roles and responsibilities for maintaining and sharing research data. As part of her instruction in all of these areas, it is assumed that she will also learn the ethics of scientific research.” (3)

“By calling attention to the way social structures create strain for certain individuals causing them to find novel, often deviant, ways to succeed. When we listen carefully to scientists’ discussions of wrongdoing it becomes clear that they are laboring in situations that place some researchers in situations of strain.” Data gathered in this study demonstrates that any effort to reduce misbehavior and misconduct must pay attention to the nature of scientific work and to the internal processes of science otherwise the scientist will find ways around it as outside forces are still pressuring them to produce results.(1)
“Scientific research may be in decline across the globe because of growing pressures to report only positive results, new analysis suggests.
A study by the University of Edinburgh examined more than 4,600 scientific research papers published between 1990 and 2007 and found a steady decline in studies in which the findings contradicted scientific hypotheses.
Papers reporting null or negative findings are in principle as useful as positive ones, but they attract fewer readers and citations, so scientific journals tend to reject them.
It is acknowledged among scientists that this problem might be worsening, because competition in science is growing and jobs and grants are given to scientists who publish frequently in high-ranking journals. Many researchers, therefore, have speculated that scientists will increasingly pursue predictable outcomes and produce positive results through re-interpretation, selection or even manipulation of data.
The study examined research papers in which a hypothesis had been tested, in various scientific disciplines. Over the period studied, positive results grew from around 70 per cent in 1990 to 86 per cent in 2007. The growth was strongest in economics, business, clinical medicine, psychology, psychiatry, pharmacology and molecular biology.
The findings, published in Scientometrics, also show that papers reporting positive results are more frequent in the US than in Europe.
Dr Daniele Fanelli of the University's Institute for the Study of Science, Technology and Innovation, who led the study, said: "Either journals are rejecting more negative results, or scientists are producing more positives. It is most likely a combination of both.
"Without negative evidence in the literature, scientists might misestimate the importance of phenomena and waste resources replicating failed studies. The higher frequency of US papers reporting positive findings may suggest that problems linked to competition are greater in the US than elsewhere." (6)
Why its important that they do…
“She said a code of ethics is necessary because of the rapid pace of scientific breakthroughs, such as Dolly the sheep, the human genome project, human embryonic stem cells, and gene transfer.
"The stakes are higher than ever before in human history," writes Jones in the article. "Enhanced concerns over bioterrorism have focused attention on the dual use of knowledge derived from biological research that can be used as easily for malicious purposes."
But Jones points to a more far reaching impact of scientific activities. "Scientific prowess claims to not only predict our future, cure, or destroy people, and control evolution, but more portentously reframe what it means to be human." The code goes on to discuss such principles as objectivity, research freedom, respect for subjects, and virtues such as duty, integrity and altruism.
Jones said an ethics code should "not be merely endless rules and regulations, but should set the aims, principles and virtues that inspire the best ethical practice and character of scientists." ” (5)

“My point is that post-academic science has features that make nonsense of the traditional barriers between science and ethics. As we have seen, the two separate reasons for keeping ethical considerations out of the two separate scientific traditions are essentially inconsistent. Applied simultaneously to this new hybrid culture, they do not reinforce each other but tend to cancel each other out.
For example, post-academic research is usually undertaken as a succession of “projects,” each justified in advance to a funding body whose members are usually not scientists. As the competition for funds intensifies, project proposals are forced to become more and more specific about the expected outcomes of the research, including its wider economic and social impact. This is no longer a matter for individual researchers to determine for themselves. Universities and research institutes are no longer deemed to be devoted entirely to the pursuit of knowledge “for its own sake.” They are encouraged to seek industrial funding for commissioned research, and to exploit to the full any patentable discoveries made by their academic staffs—especially when there is a smell of commercial profit in the wind.” (4)
“Another feature of post-academic science is that it is largely the work of teams of scientists, often networked over a number of different institutions. Where, then, do the ethical responsibilities lie? Should the nominal leader be blamed for dishonest work by a junior member? What ethical code should apply to a team that includes scientists from both academia and industry? And to further complicate the problem, teams are often temporary. How will ethical considerations operate in such heterogeneous and evanescent settings?
These are only some examples of the way that the transition to post-academic science is forcing scientists to become more sensitive to ethical issues. One of the virtues of the new mode of knowledge production is that it cannot brush its ethical problems under the carpet. Science can no longer be “in denial” of matters that many of us have long tried to bring to the fore.” (4)

1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1483899/ 2) David B. Resnik, J.D., Ph.D. http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/ 3) Anthony Carpi, Ph.D., Anne E. Egger, Ph.D. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~ethics/archives/Stern_Elliott.pdf Visionlearning Vol. POS-2 (5), 2009. 4) Judy E. Stern, Ph.D. and Deni Elliott, Ed.D. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/282/5395/1813.full Hanover and London. Published by University Press of New England, Hanover, NH 03755. © 1997 5) John Ziman http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070201144615.htm Science 4 December 1998: Vol. 282 no. 5395 pp. 1813-1814. DOI: 10.1126/science.282.5395.1813 6) Catriona Kelly. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-09/uoe-pfp091211.php 12-Sep-2011. University of Edinburgh.