CHEM698X

Ethics Paper set

Merle Zimmermann

This document is based on the article On Being a Scientist, which is posted on the NAP's website if you want to read it. The assignment was to write up a two page summary of the article, then a two page discussion of one of the case studies in the pamphlet.

Part 1: On Being a Scientist: Summary

Social Foundations

Science is a unique pursuit which combines and directs individual work towards the goal of advancing the knowledge of the group. The social nature of the scientific society makes it necessary to have rules by which work is kept to a standard of quality. Ethical concerns are necessary because many people fall prey to temptations that could wreak havoc on the good reputation of the scientific community.

Experimental Techniques and Data

It is necessary to make observations (be they of a computer simulation, beaker on the bench, or specimens to be dissected) in order to draw conclusions and construct and test theories or hypothesis about the real world. Accurate and honest applications of methods are necessary to collect these, especially if the results are inconclusive or run counter to expectations or theory. Methods may and are expected to sometimes fail, and this must not be ignored or swept under the proverbial rug.

Values in Science

Personal values or beliefs can and will affect your deductions and measurements. It is up to you to learn as much about the ones you hold as you can, so you will at least be aware how your interpretations and observations are possibly being distorted. Sometimes personal convictions will work to your benefit, and sometimes not.

Conflicts of Interest

Conflicts of interest are found when an individual or group has to decide between two benefactors when setting up their next courses of action. Many groups are setting up rules to follow when confronted with a situation that has a conflict of interest. You should try to follow these if you encounter a problem situation.

Publication and Openness

Individuals like to get credit for their work. The journal system was designed to provide for this while also allowing for the rapid sharing and distribution of information. Before publication, a scientist is not required to share or distribute information about their work, although it is encouraged to do so anyway. Different groups have different needs for secrecy and suchlike, so there are established ways to act when working for a corporate sponsor (allowing them to patent ideas before publication) or for a secured military project (unclassified summaries). Sharing your work is important because it is through sharing that science can collect new information and advance everyone's standing.

Allocation of Credit

To reward scientists for doing good work, we cite it when applicable. Citations are a way of giving credit to individuals who supported you, as well as a way of judging productivity (for those who give awards and grants), and the importance of ideas. Habitually not citing others' work can tarnish an otherwise good reputation and make ones' research useless to the community.

Authorship Practices

Since more than one person might have contributed to a project or work, and our earth languages are written to be read in a certain order rather than gestalted all at once, it is important to consider the local customs when listing names associated with a project. In many cases, the first name listed is the most important, but there are some circles where the last name is the main one. Authors are responsible for all works bearing their names, so it is important to check over any papers which you participated in carefully for mistakes. It also might be a good idea to have footnotes to indicate who was responsible for what in complex cases.

Errors and Negligence

Errors can strike anywhere and anytime; you must be ready for them. If you find a mistake in published material you need to bring it to the attention of the publisher right away (usually via a Letter). Excessive or unnecessary errors are frowned upon and can damage or destroy reputations, so be SURE to avoid all avoidable mistakes. Getting the scoop on an idea is not an excuse to act recklessly.

Misconduct in Science

The worst sort of errors are the product of willful actions where data is faked or copied from another source. Deception can easily and usually does spiral out of the areas where it started, involving more than just the scientific community and damaging our reputations as a whole. DO NOT FORGE DATA!

Responding to violations of ethical standards

If you suspect an ethical violation, it is your responsibility to report it to the proper authorities. However, there are countless occasions where the whistle-blower ends up out in the cold, so you may want to consult with someone trustworthy before you act. Be aware that written complaints are much more serious than oral ones. There are also policies and procedures in place at any institution supported in part by federal money. You may wish to study these before taking action.

Scientists in Society

Scientific progress can have devastating social consequences. If your research leads you to notice possible applications or consequences that might affect the public at large, it is your duty to assemble a group to discuss possible regulation or control of your work. Also, the public should be able to make informed decisions about things that would affect them, so another responsibility is to provide them with accurate information in a format which they can understand.

(There is an interesting movie, The Henderson Monster, which is about a recombinant DNA project in a small college town. I'm not sure about adding it to this one, but it might very well be a useful addition to Dr. Greer's science ethics course.)

Part 2: On Being a Scientist Case Study Commentary: A Career in the Balance

(NOTE: Following the suggestion in the text, I organized a meeting with Mr. Shekarian and Mr. Khaskan and we discussed all of the case studies at length. The following, although wholly written by me, owes much to these two fine gentlemen above.)

This case study is about Francine, a Ph.D. student who is almost finished, but then starts suspecting her junior friend, Sylvia, of fabricating experimental data. She is worried about intervening with her professor because Sylvia is better liked than her, and she needs recommendation letters from the professor when she applies to become a faculty member at another school. Unfortunately, her work (and her professor's) is also based in part on Sylvia's now-suspect data.

(summarized from On Being a Scientist)

Discussion Questions (from the text):

1. Who should Francine talk to first?

There are several people who Francine could consult at this point: Sylvia herself, the professor, the university ombudsman, the department in charge of investigating allegations of misconduct, or some third disinterested party with a confidentiality agreement, like a priest or trusted friend. I'll consider the pros and cons of asking each one below:

Talking to Sylvia:

If the suspicions are unfounded, talking to Sylvia first will allow Francine to correct her misaligned world view with minimal consequences for anyone involved (provided she is friendly and diplomatic about it, she might even stay on good terms with Sylvia). One possible way of doing this might be to get pick some of the data which she used in her paper and try to reproduce it on her own (I'd like to thank Mr. Shekarian for first suggesting this possible avenue of action). If there were a problem with the procedure or results, it would be revealed in an "innocent" way, without requiring involvement of anyone else. If it didn't work, Francine could politely ask Sylvia if she could help her repeat the experiment, which would either uncover the falsification or the mistake that Francine made in running the experiment which caused it to produce unusable data.

Talking to the Professor:

By going to the professor first, Francine is allowing the problem to stay within the group. It is possible that her fears about the letter of reference are unfounded, but if they aren't, her actions might have nailed a couple more boards onto her career's coffin. Again, extreme caution and diplomacy are a must. If Francine isn't proficient at these, a better course of action might be to talk to a third party, which has the disadvantage of pulling more people into the whirlpool, but the advantage of getting witnesses who can testify to the date Francine first suspected foul play in her lab. She might also consider writing her concerns in her lab notebook in a guarded way, so that if there are repercussions later she won't be held responsible for concealing Sylvia's misconduct for longer than she actually did.

Talking to the Ombudsman:

The university ombudsman is a resource paid for by the school who is responsible for discussing and arbitrating situations like these. They would probably have training and practice in dealing with this kind of situation, so it might be an ideal place to go for advice if Francine didn't want to involve the professor and Sylvia right away. However, the more people Francine involves in the situation the messier it might become later, when the court cases start pouring in. Some ombudsmans support anonymous consultation, which might be useful in a case like this one.

Talking to the investigative department:

This might be the most extreme course of action to take. By going over the other three people in the chain of authority (Sylvia herself, then the professor, then the ombudsman) and directly filing an oral (or to be more extreme, a written) complaint with the department, Francine guarantees both that a formal investigation will land on the other student (and her lab in general) and that Sylvia and the professor will possibly hate her guts forever if they find out why it happened. However, if the investigation uncovers serious misconduct that ends up with the dismissal of those involved, Francine will only have to deal with her reputation as a trouble magnet for the rest of her life rather than worrying about the professor instantly axing her as soon as the investigation ends. This might be the best thing to do if the lab were working on a dangerous project that could easily harm other people and groups if Sylvia were falsifying data, but by bypassing the chain of command Francine probably won't make any new friends.

Talking to the Disinterested Party:

Talking to a disinterested party is another possibility. When Francine consults with a priest or one of her friends, she will not have to worry much (unless she picks a gossipy friend) about the news getting back to her lab and messing up her standing. Unfortunately, with this security also comes the problem of getting good advice. It isn't very likely that her friend will be a master of ethics and social procedure, but it is likely that the other individual will be able to think more clearly about the problem and make a decision about it, since they don't have the worries of cutting the thread holding Damocles' sword on their mind.

2. Does she know enough to raise concerns?

Certainly so; when she first suspects Sylvia of wrongdoing, she has enough information to involve others. While it might be very unwise to involve the official school board by a letter in writing, it is her responsibility to bring the matter to someone's attention. If she did not, that would make her an accessory to the fabrication. However, if she is sure that calling attention to it now would ruin her career, it might be necessary for her to wait until she reaches her new position before filing a complaint.

3. Where else can she go for information?

The school should have a system in place that explains what sorts of things are expected from its scientists and the procedures that should be followed. I went to our university's OIT Help Desk and found this page, which has some links to online resources discussing ethical issues:

http://www.nethics.umd.edu/resources/online/ethics.html

Also, we have our own ombudsman on campus, whose page is here:

http://www.vprgs.umd.edu/ombuds/

Other schools should have similar resources available for their students, and there is also the possibility of contacting a professional organization for help. On Being a Scientist mentions Sigma Xi as a possible group which would be glad to offer help and consultation.