Ethical Ambiguity in Science
- 1.1k Downloads
Drawing on 171 in-depth interviews with physicists at universities in the United States and the UK, this study examines the narratives of 48 physicists to explain the concept of ethical ambiguity: the border where legitimate and illegitimate conduct is blurred. Researchers generally assume that scientists agree on what constitutes both egregious and more routine forms of misconduct in science. The results of this study show that scientists perceive many scenarios as ethically gray, rather than black and white. Three orientations to ethical ambiguity are considered—altruism, inconsequential outcomes, and preserving the status quo—that allow possibly questionable behavior to persist unchallenged. Each discursive strategy is rationalized as promoting the collective interest of science rather than addressing what is ethically correct or incorrect. The results of this study suggest that ethics training in science should focus not only on fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism and more routine forms of misconduct, but also on strategies for resolving ethically ambiguous scenarios where appropriate action may not be clear.
KeywordsAmbiguity Physics Cross-national Deontology Consequentialism Phronesis
The data for this analysis come from the ethics among physicists in Cross-National Perspective Study, funded by the National Science Foundation (Grant #1237737), Elaine Howard Ecklund PI, Kirstin R.W. Matthews and Steven Lewis, Co-PIs.
- Anderson, M., Shaw, M., Steneck, N., Konkle, E., & Kamata, T. (2013). Research integrity and misconduct in the academic profession. In M. B. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- Cohen, J. (2005). A word from the president: “Research integrity is job one.” AAMC reporter September. http://www.aamc.org/newsroom/reporter/sept05/word.htm
- Cooney, M. (2009). Is killing wrong?: A study in pure sociology. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
- Durkheim, E. (1982) . The rules of the sociological method. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
- Kovac, J. (2004). The ethical chemist: Professionalism and ethics in science. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
- 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(1), 51–66.Google Scholar
- Ostriker, J. P., Kuh, C. V., & Voytuk, J. A. (2010). A data-based assessment of research-doctorate programs in the United States. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Owen-Smith, J., Riccaboni, M., Pammolli, F., & Powell, W. W. (2002). A comparison of US and European university-industry relations in the life sciences. Management Science, 48(1), 24–43.Google Scholar
- Scneider, Leonid. (2015). Too much to be nothing? Laborjournal, 3, 14–19.Google Scholar
- Zuckerman, H. (1988) The sociology of science. In N. Smelser (Ed.) Handbook of sociology (pp. 511–574). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar