Transcript Why Ethics Matters in Science

Why Ethics Matters in Science
First International Workshop on Ethics in Science,
Swiss Society for Optics and Microscopy,
Montreux (Switzerland), 28-29 August 2010
Henry H. Bauer
Dean Emeritus of Arts & Sciences
Professor Emeritus of Chemistry & Science Studies
Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University
Up to about 1980
no one talked about ethics in science
It seemed irrelevant:
Experiments, observations, discoveries = FACTS
“Ethics” came up only with deliberate dishonesty,
which was very rare
Science displaced religion by late 19th century
as the universally accepted authority
(David Knight, The Age of Science)
T. H. Huxley, late 19th century:
preached Lay Sermons for the Church Scientific
Scientists are to worldly matters
as monks are to spiritual matters: selfless
People take up science to learn how things work,
not to become wealthy or famous
1982:
Betrayers of the Truth:
Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science
(science journalists William Broad, Nicholas Wade)
50 cases from 2000 years = dishonesty is normal!
NO: most cases in biomedicine, and rare
From chemistry to Science Studies
Science Studies (Science & Technology Studies, STS):
history of science, philosophy of science, sociology of science;
engineers, social scientists, etc. --every aspect of science and its interactions with other institutions
FACTS ARE THEORY-LADEN
The meaning of a fact
the significance of a fact
is a matter of interpretation
FACT = black lines on white background
MEANING =
Duck facing left?
Rabbit facing right?
RASHOMON
The Enigma of Loch Ness: Making Sense of a Mystery:
Chapters 1 and 2: opposite conclusions from exactly the same evidence
of folklore, eyewitness accounts, photographs, deliberate hoaxes
“THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD”
Set up an hypothesis;
devise a test;
carry out the test;
the results prove or disprove the hypothesis.
1. Almost no science is done that way
2. “PROVE OR DISPROVE” = INTERPRETATION
Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method
Chargaff:
FACT--A  G; T  C
Watson & Crick:
MEANING--A = G, T = C
John Ziman: Real Science: What It Is and What It Means
Filtering takes time
Scientific theories -- interpretations! -- are never known to be final
Scientists should never claim absolute knowledge (global warming?)
Filtering works only if people behave ethically
“peer review” by colleagues or competitors
biased reviews of manuscripts and grant proposals
editors’ choices of reviewers
ETHICAL, IN SCIENCE =
DISINTERESTED
NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST are COMMON
Advisers to FDA consult for drug companies
Officials at NIH consult for drug companies
Manuscript and grant reviewers are competitors
Universities compete in rankings for research
Andrew Stark, Conflict of Interest in American Public Life:
1. There are (at least ) two interests
2. State of mind because of those interests
3. Actions taken
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
have a STATISTICAL effect
Some people’s actions are influenced, but not others’
and there is no way to prove one way or the other
It is NOT a question of deliberately being dishonest, selfish, greedy
“Apparent” conflicts of interest
“Negligible” conflicts of interest
The only way to avoid the undesirable effects
of conflicts of interest
is not to have any conflicts of interest
ETHICAL BEHAVIOR
IS MORE LIKELY
WHEN ALL DISCUSSIONS ARE OPEN
Reviewing of manuscripts and grant proposals
should NOT be anonymous!
Peer review is inevitably biased toward status quo
this conflicts with innovation and progress
NEED PUBLICATION OF MINORITY VIEWS