Scientometrics

, 43:269 | Cite as

Science ethics: A study of eminent scientists' professional values

  • Katarina Prpić
Article

Abstract

A questionnaire study of eminent scientists' professional values was carried out within more extensive research of professional ethics. The structure of scientists' professional values is composed of five factors: collegial and professorial responsibility, the protection of respondents or patients, wider social and professional responsibility, scientific precision and originality and scientific objectivity. The core of the scientists' professional code consists of the values with the highest ratings. These are: cognitive standards which define the research role, explicit expectations of the scientists' social responsibility, and requirements for excellence of scientific institutions and personnel. At the same time, significant differences have been found among the observed scientific fields. The largest discriminative power has been shown in the importance of precise measurements and then also in the protection of respondents and patients. These results question the traditional unitary concept of science, but also the concept of intellectual and social atomisation of scientific disciplines and fields.

References

  1. 1.
    S. Hemlin, H. Montgomery, Scientists' Conceptions of Scientific Quality: An Interview Study,Science Studies, 3 (1990) 73–81.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Cole,Making Science: Between Nature and Society, Harvard University Press, Cambridge/London, 1992.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Hemlin, Scientific Quality in the Eyes of the Scientists. A Questionnaire Study,Scientometrics, 27 (1993) 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. Sonnert, What Makes a Good Scientist?: Determinats of Peer Evaluation among Biologists,Social Studies of Science, 25 (1995) 35–55.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    T. Luukkonen, The Impacts of Research Field Evaluations on Research Practice,Research Policy, 24 (1995) 349–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    W. R. Shadish, D. Tolliver, M. Gray, S. Sen Gupta, Author Judgements about Works They Cite: Three Studies from Psychology Journals,Social Studies of Science, 24 (1995) 477–498.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    K. Buchholz Criteria for the Analysis of Scientific Quality,Scientometrics, 32 (1995) 195–218.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    L. B. Sechrest, Approaches to Ensuring Quality of Data and Performance: Lessons for Science, in:D. N. Jackson andJ. P. Rushton (Eds),Scientific Excellence: Origins and Assessment, Sage, Newbury Park/Beverli Hills/London/New Delhi, 1987, pp. 253–283.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Mazur, Allegation of Dishonesty in Research and Their Treatment by American Universities,Minerva, 27 (1989) 177–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    E. G. Shore, Effectiveness of Research Guidelines in Prevention of Scientific Misconduct,Science and Engineering Ethics, 1 (1995) 383–387.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. K. Merton,The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1974.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    H. Zuckerman,Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States, The Free Press & Collier Macmillan Publishers, New York/London, 1977.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. R. Cole, S. Cole,Social Stratification in Science, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1981.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    H. M. Collins, Knowledge, Norms and Rules in the Sociology of Science,Social Studies of Science, 12 (1982) 299–309.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    D. E. Chubin, S. Restivo, The ‘Mooting’ of Science Studies: Research Programmes and Science Policy, in:K. D. Knorr-Cetina andM. Mulkay (Eds),Science Observed: Prespectives on the Social Study of Science, Sage, London/Beverly Hills/New Delhi, 1983, pp 53–83.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. Fuchs,The Professional Quest for Truth: A Social Theory of Science and Knowledge, State University of New York Press, Albany, 1992.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    K. Prpić, Socio-kognitivni pristup profesionalnoj etici znanstvenika (Socio-Cognitive Approach to Scientists' Professional Ethics), in:K. Prpić et al. (Eds),Sociologški ogledi. Zbornik radova uz 30. objetnicu Instituta za društvena istraživanja Sveučilišta u Zagrebu (Sociological Insights: Collected Papers on the Occasion of the 30th Anniversary of the Institute for Social Research—Zagreb Univesity), Institut za društvena istraživanja—Zagreb, Zagreb, 1994, pp. 71–87.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    R. D. Whitley, The Sociology of Scientific Work and the History of Scientific Developments, in:S. S. Blume (Ed.),Perspectives in the Sociology of Science, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester/New York/Brisbane/Toronto, 1977, pp 21–50.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    R. Whitley, The Context of Scientific Investigation, in:K. D. Knorr, R. Krohn, R. Whitley (Eds),The Social Process of Scientific Investigation, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht/Boston/London, 1981, pp 297–321.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    R. Whitley,The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1984.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    K. Prpić,Profesionalna etika znanstvenika (Scintists' Professional Ethics), Institut za društvena istraživanja u Zagrebu, Zagreb, 1997.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ž. Šporer,Sociologija profesija: ogled o društvenoj uvjetovanosti profesionalizacije (The Sociology of Professions: Essay on Social Determination of Professionalisation). Sociološko Hrvatske, Zagreb, 1990.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    U. Segerstråle, Anti-Antiscience: The Fight for Science and Reason,Science Studies, 9 (1996) 5–25.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    H. H. Bauer, The Anti-Science Phenomenon in Science & Technology Studies,Science Studies, 9 (1996) 34–49.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    S. Fuchs, The Poverty of Postmodernism,Science Studies, 9 (1996) 58–66.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Y. Elkana, Two-Tier-Thinking: Philosophical Realism and Historical Relativism,Social Studies of Science, 8 (1978) 309–326.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    J. M. Chase, Normative Criteria for Scientific Publication,American Sociologist, 25 (1970) 262–265.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    S. Hemlin, H. Montgomery, Peer Judgements of Scientific Quality: A Cross-Disciplinary Document Analysis of Professorship Candidates.Science Studies, 6 (1993) 19–27.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    S. Lelas,Promišljanje znanosti (Contemplating Science), Hrvatsko filozofsko društvo, Zagreb, 1990.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    S. Fuchs, A Sociological Theory of Objectivity,Science Studies, 11 (1997) 4–26.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    M. J. Mahoney, Psychology of the Scientists: An Evaluative Review,Social Studies of Science, 9 (1979) 349–375.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    C. Kerr, The Academic Ethic and University achers: A “Disintegrating Profession”?Minerva, 27 (1989) 139–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    S. C. Hill, Questioning the Influence of a ‘Social System of Science’: a Study of Australian Scientists,Science Studies, 4 (1974) 135–163.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    L. H. Kern, H. L. Mirels, V. G. Hinshaw, Scientist's Understanding of Propositional Logic: An Experimental Investigation,Social Studies of Science, 13 (1983) 131–146.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Đ Šušnjić,Znati i verovati. Teorijske orijentacije u proučavanju religije i ateizma, (To Know and to Believe. Theoretical Orientations in the Studies of Religion and Atheism), Kršćanska sadašnjost/Stvarnost, Zagreb, 1988.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    W. O. Hagstrom,The Scientific Community, Basic Books, Inc., New York/London, 1965.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    J. P. Swazey, M. S. Anderson, K. Seashore Lewis, Ethical Problems in Academic Research,American Scientist, 81 (1993) 542–553.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    T. L. Beauchamp, Načela u bioetici (Priciples in Bioethics).Društvena Istraživanja (Social Research), 5 (1996) 533–544.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    A. Elzinga, The consequences of evaluation for academic research,Science Studies, 1 (1988) 5–14.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    D. Nelkin, Scientists and Professional Responsibility: The Experience of American Ecologists,Social Studies of Science, 7 (1977) 79–95.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    J. Bronowski,Osjećaj budućnosti: Eseji iz filozofije znanosti (A Sense of the Future. Essays in Natural Philosophy), Globus, Zagreb, 1980.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    N. Sesardić,Iz analitičke perspektive: ogledi o filozofiji znanosti i politici, (From the Analytical Perspective: Essays on Philosophy, Science and Politics), Sociološko društvo Hrvatske, Zagreb, 1991.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    F. Maletić, Franjo (Ed.),Tko je tko u Hrvatskoj=Who is who in Croatia, Golden marketing, Zagreb, 1993.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    K. Prpić, Characteristics and Determinants of Eminent Scientists' Productivity,Scientometrics, 36 (1996) 185–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    K. Prpić, Scientific Fields and Eminent Scientists' Productivity Patterns and Factors,Scientometrics, 37 (1996) 445–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    B. Golub, Croatian Scientists' Drain and its Roots,International Migration, 34 (1996) 609–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    B. Golub, ---Socioprofesionalni profil znanstveničke elite (Socio-Professional Profile of the Scientific Elite), in:B. Golub, B. Krištofić, D. Čengić,Znanstvene i privredne elite (Scientific Managerial Elites) Institut za društvena instraživanja u Zagrebu, Zagreb, 1997, pp 9–40.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    M. Roche, Y. Freites, Rise and Twilight of the Venezuelan Scientific Community,Scientometrics, (1992) 267–289.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    S. P. Nichols, W. F. Weldon, Professional Responsibility: The Role of the Engineer in Society,Science and Engineering Ethics, 3 (1997) 327–337.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    M. Davis, An Historical Preface to Engineering Ethics,Science and Engineering Ethics, 1 (1995) 33–48.MATHGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    U. Segerstråle, Good to the Last Drop? Millikan Stories as “Canned” Pedagogy,Science and Engineering Ethics, 1 (1995) 197–214.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    J. Županov,Poslije potopa (After the Deluge), Globus, Zagreb, 1995.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    M. S. Frankel, J. Cave, Introduction, in:M. S. Frankel, J. Cave (Eds),Evaluating Science and Scientists: An East-West Dialogue on Research Evaluation in Post-Communist Europe, Central European University Press, Budapest, 1997, pp 1–6.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    A. Łomnicki, A Polish Perspective on Peer Rewiev, In:M. S. Frankel, J. Cave (Eds),Evaluating Science and Scientists: An East-West Dialogue on Research Evaluation in Post-Communist Europe, Central European University Press, Budapest, 1997, pp 61–70.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katarina Prpić
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Social Research of ZagrebZagrebCroatia

Personalised recommendations