Advertisement

Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 533–541 | Cite as

Scientific misconduct and science ethics: a case study based approach

  • Luca ConsoliEmail author
Article

Abstract

The Schön misconduct case has been widely publicized in the media and has sparked intense discussions within and outside the scientific community about general issues of science ethics. This paper analyses the Report of the official Committee charged with the investigation in order to show that what at first seems to be a quite uncontroversial case, turns out to be an accumulation of many interesting and non-trivial questions (of both ethical and philosophical interest). In particular, the paper intends to show that daily scientific practices are structurally permeated by chronic problems; this has serious consequences for how practicing scientists assess their work in general, and scientific misconduct in particular. A philosophical approach is proposed that sees scientific method and scientific ethics as inextricably interwoven. Furthermore, the paper intends to show that the definition of co-authorship that the members of the Committee use, although perhaps clear in theory, proves highly problematic in practice and raises more questions that it answers. A final plea is made for a more self-reflecting attitude of scientists as far as the moral and methodological profile of science is concerned as a key element for improving not only their scientific achievements, but also their assessment of problematic cases.

Keywords

misconduct science ethics methodology authorship 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Literature on this topic is vast. For a case study of how media influence the public perception of science, see Gregory J. (2003) The popularization and excommunication of Fred Hoyle’s ‘life-from-space’ theory. Public Understanding of Science 12: 25–46. For a sociological study of the impact of technology on society and the public, an interesting perspective is offered by Ellul, J. (1967) The technological society. USA: Random House. See also Boulter D. (1999) Public perception of science and associated general issues for the scientist. Phytochemistry 50: 1–7; B.L. Cohen, B.L. (1998) Public perception versus results of scientific risk analysis. Reliability Engineering and System. Safety 59: 101–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lafollette, M. (1992) Stealing into print: fraud, plagiarism, and misconduct in scientific publishing. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Drenth, P.J.D. (1999) Scientists at fault: causes and consequences of misconduct in science, in: European science and scientists between freedom and responsibility. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Community.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Beasley et al. (2002) Report of the investigation committee on the possibility of scientific misconduct in the work of Hendrik Schön and coauthors. Lucent Technologies. Available online at the URL: http://www.lucent.com/news_events/researchreview.html. We will refer for convenience to this document from now on as “Report”.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Service, R.F. (2002) Winning Streak Brought Awe, And Then Doubt. Science 297: 34–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goss Levi, B. (2002) Bell Labs Convenes Committee to Investigate Questions of Scientific Misconduct. Physics Today.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brumfield, G. (2002) Misconduct Finding at Bell Labs Shakes Physics Community. Nature 419: 419–421Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chang, K. (09-26-2002) Panel Says Bell Labs Scientist Faked Discoveries”, New York Times.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kolata, G. (09-29-2002) Assigning Blame is Fraud is found. New York Times.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nature 429, 692 (17 June 2004); 429, 789 (24 June 2004).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Electronic document, available atURL: http://www.ostp.gov/html/001207_3.html.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, URL: http://m-w.com.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kuhn, T.S. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, USA.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Recommendations of the Commission on Professional Self Regulation in Science, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Available at URL: http://www.dfg.de.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Opragen Publications 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Science and Society, Department of Philosophy, Institute for Science, Innovation and Society (ISIS), Faculty of ScienceRadboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations