Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 685–701 | Cite as

Research Integrity and Everyday Practice of Science

Original Paper

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Responsible conduct of research Science education Science policy Philosophy of science 

References

  1. 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity. (2010). Singapore statement on research integrity, from http://www.singaporestatement.org/statement.html.
  2. American Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. (1998). Code of ethics, from http://ethics.iit.edu/ecodes/node/3898.
  3. Bernard, C. (1957). An introduction to the study of experimental medicine (1865). New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  4. Billingham, R. E. (1974). Reminiscences of a “transplanter”. Transplantation Proceedings, 6, 5–17.Google Scholar
  5. Conant, J. B. (1951). Science and common sense. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. DeHaan, R. L. (2011). Science education. Teaching creative science thinking. Science, 334, 1499–1500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Etkina, E., Karelina, A., Ruibal-Villasenor, M., Rosengrant, D., Jordan, R., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2010). Design and reflection help students develop scientific abilities: Learning in introductory physics laboratories. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 54–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against method. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  10. Fleck, L. (1979). Genesis and development of a scientific fact (1935). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Goldstein, J. L. (2007). Creation and revelation: Two different routes to advancement in the biomedical sciences. Nature Medicine, 13, 1151–1154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goodstein, D. (2001). In the case of Robert Andrews Millikan. American Scientist, 89, 54–60.Google Scholar
  13. Grinnell, F. (1992). The scientific attitude (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  14. Grinnell, F. (2009). Everyday practice of science: Where intuition and passion meet objectivity and logic. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hayes, W. (1982). Max Ludwig Henning Delbruck. Biographical Memoirs of the Fellows of the Royal Society, 28, 58–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holton, G. (1973). Thematic origins of scientific thought: Kepler to Einstein. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2, e124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jackson, C. I. (1984). Honor in science. New Haven, CT: Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society.Google Scholar
  19. Jacob, F. (1988). The statue within. New York, NY: Basic Books Inc.Google Scholar
  20. Jacob, F. (2011). The birth of the operon. Science, 332, 767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Levi-Montalcini, R. (1988). In praise of imperfection. New York, NY: Basic Books Inc.Google Scholar
  25. Manoharan, J. (2011, 04/22/2011). Scientific misconduct starts early, from http://www.biotechniques.com/news/Scientific-misconduct-starts-early/biotechniques-314589.html.
  26. Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., Crain, A. L., & de Vries, R. (2006). Scientists’ perceptions of organizational justice and self-reported misbehaviors. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1, 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McClintock, B. (1983). Nobel banquet speech—December 10, 1983. In T. Frängsmyr (Ed.), Les Prix Nobel. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
  28. Medawar, P. B. (1963). Is the scientific paper a fraud? The Listener (September 12), pp. 377–378.Google Scholar
  29. Medawar, P. B. (1968). Lucky Jim. The New York Review of Books, March 28, 1968.Google Scholar
  30. National Academies National Research Council. (2006). America’s lab report: Investigations in high school science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  31. 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
  32. National Academies—Institute of Medicine. (2002). Integrity in scientific research: Creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  33. 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.
  34. 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.
  35. 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
  36. Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology (E. Duckworth, Trans.). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
  37. Plato. (380 B.C.E.). Meno 80 d-e, from http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/meno.html.
  38. Polanyi, M. (1983). The tacit dimension (1966). Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith Publishers.Google Scholar
  39. Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York, NY: Basic Books Inc.Google Scholar
  40. 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
  41. Roth, W.-M. (1994). Experimenting in the constructivist high school physics laboratory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 197–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schachman, H. K. (2006). From “publish or perish” to “patent and prosper”. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 281, 6889–6903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schilling, H. K. (1958). A human enterprise. Science, 127, 1324–1327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schutz, A. (1967). The phenomenology of the social world (G. Walsh & F. Lehnert, Trans.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  45. 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
  46. 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.
  47. 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.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Cell Biology, Program in Ethics in Science and MedicineUT Southwestern Medical CenterDallasUSA

Personalised recommendations