Research Integrity and Everyday Practice of Science
Science traditionally is taught as a linear process based on logic and carried out by objective researchers following the scientific method. Practice of science is a far more nuanced enterprise, one in which intuition and passion become just as important as objectivity and logic. Whether the activity is committing to study a particular research problem, drawing conclusions about a hypothesis under investigation, choosing whether to count results as data or experimental noise, or deciding what information to present in a research paper, ethical challenges inevitably will arise because of the ambiguities inherent in practice. Unless these ambiguities are acknowledged and their sources understood explicitly, responsible conduct of science education will not adequately prepare the individuals receiving the training for the kinds of decisions essential to research integrity that they will have to make as scientists.
KeywordsResponsible conduct of research Science education Science policy Philosophy of science
Thanks to Mark Frankel, Kenneth Pimple, William Snell and Thomas Mayo for their helpful comments and suggestions regarding this essay.
- 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity. (2010). Singapore statement on research integrity, from http://www.singaporestatement.org/statement.html.
- American Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. (1998). Code of ethics, from http://ethics.iit.edu/ecodes/node/3898.
- Bernard, C. (1957). An introduction to the study of experimental medicine (1865). New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
- Billingham, R. E. (1974). Reminiscences of a “transplanter”. Transplantation Proceedings, 6, 5–17.Google Scholar
- Conant, J. B. (1951). Science and common sense. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- de Solla Price, D. (1983). The science/technology relationship, the craft of experimental science, and policy for the improvement of high technology innovation. In National Science Foundation (Ed.), Role of basic research in science and technology. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
- Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against method. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
- Fleck, L. (1979). Genesis and development of a scientific fact (1935). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Goodstein, D. (2001). In the case of Robert Andrews Millikan. American Scientist, 89, 54–60.Google Scholar
- Grinnell, F. (1992). The scientific attitude (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Grinnell, F. (2009). Everyday practice of science: Where intuition and passion meet objectivity and logic. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Holton, G. (1973). Thematic origins of scientific thought: Kepler to Einstein. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Jackson, C. I. (1984). Honor in science. New Haven, CT: Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society.Google Scholar
- Jacob, F. (1988). The statue within. New York, NY: Basic Books Inc.Google Scholar
- James, W. (1975). Pragmatism’s conception of truth (1907). In Pragmatism and the meaning of truth (pp. 95–113). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Kuhn, T. S. (1979). Objectivity, value judgement, and theory choice. In T. S. Kuhn (Ed.), The essential tension. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Levi-Montalcini, R. (1988). In praise of imperfection. New York, NY: Basic Books Inc.Google Scholar
- Manoharan, J. (2011, 04/22/2011). Scientific misconduct starts early, from http://www.biotechniques.com/news/Scientific-misconduct-starts-early/biotechniques-314589.html.
- McClintock, B. (1983). Nobel banquet speech—December 10, 1983. In T. Frängsmyr (Ed.), Les Prix Nobel. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
- Medawar, P. B. (1963). Is the scientific paper a fraud? The Listener (September 12), pp. 377–378.Google Scholar
- Medawar, P. B. (1968). Lucky Jim. The New York Review of Books, March 28, 1968.Google Scholar
- National Academies National Research Council. (2006). America’s lab report: Investigations in high school science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- National Academies Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research. (1992). Responsible science: Ensuring the integrity of the research process. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- National Academies—Institute of Medicine. (2002). Integrity in scientific research: Creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- National Institutes of Health. (2011). Update on the requirement for instruction in the responsible conduct of research, from http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-10-019.html.
- National Science Foundation. (2010). Chapter IV—grantee standards; Part B. Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR), from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf10_1/aag_4.jsp.
- Peirce, C. P. (1958). Harvard lectures on pragmatism (1903). In C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss & A. Burks (Eds.), Collected papers of Charles sanders Peirce (Vols. 1–6, 5, pp. 188–189). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology (E. Duckworth, Trans.). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
- Plato. (380 B.C.E.). Meno 80 d-e, from http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/meno.html.
- Polanyi, M. (1983). The tacit dimension (1966). Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith Publishers.Google Scholar
- Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York, NY: Basic Books Inc.Google Scholar
- President’s Science Advisory Committee. (1960). Scientific progress, the universities, and the federal government (President’s Science Advisory Committee). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
- Schutz, A. (1967). The phenomenology of the social world (G. Walsh & F. Lehnert, Trans.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern Univ. Press.Google Scholar
- Shore, B. M., Delcourt, M. A. B., Syer, C. A., & Schapiro, M. (2007). The phantom of the science fair. In B. M. Shore, M. W. Aulis, & M. A. B. Delcourt (Eds.), Inquiry in education, volume II: Overcoming barriers to successful implementation. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- The National Academies. (2003). Policy on committee composition and balance and conflicts of interest for committees used in the development of reports (May 12, 2003), from http://www.nationalacademies.org/coi/bi-coi_form-0.pdf.
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1989). Requirement for programs on the responsible conduct of research in national research service award institutional training programs, from http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/historical/1989_12_22_Vol_18_No_45.pdf.