Skip to main content

Six Challenges for Ethical Conduct in Science

Science and Engineering Ethics volume 22, pages 1007–1025 (2016)Cite this article

Abstract

The realities of human agency and decision making pose serious challenges for research ethics. This article explores six major challenges that require more attention in the ethics education of students and scientists and in the research on ethical conduct in science. The first of them is the routinization of action, which makes the detection of ethical issues difficult. The social governance of action creates ethical problems related to power. The heuristic nature of human decision making implies the risk of ethical bias. The moral disengagement mechanisms represent a human tendency to evade personal responsibility. The greatest challenge of all might be the situational variation in people’s ethical behaviour. Even minor situational factors have a surprisingly strong influence on our actions. Furthermore, finally, the nature of ethics itself also causes problems: instead of clear answers, we receive a multitude of theories and intuitions that may sometimes be contradictory. All these features of action and ethics represent significant risks for ethical conduct in science. I claim that they have to be managed within the everyday practices of science and addressed explicitly in research ethics education. I analyse them and suggest some ways in which their risks can be alleviated.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  • Anderson, M., Ronning, E., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007). The perverse effects of competition on scientists’ work and relationship. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(4), 437–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (2002). Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Moral Education, 31(2), 101–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateson, M., Nettle, D., & Roberts, G. (2006). Cues of being watched enhance cooperation in a real-world setting. Biology Letters, 2(3), 412–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, T. (2010). Standing on principles—Collected essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blakeslee, S. (2002). Hijacking the brain circuits with a nickel slot machine. New York Times, 19 February 2002. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/19/science/hijacking-the-brain-circuits-with-a-nickel-slot-machine.html.

  • Carlson, R., & Hudlicky, T. (2012). On Hype, Malpractice, and Scientific Misconduct in Organic Synthesis. Helvetica Chimica Acta, 95, 2052–2062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkeburn, H., & Mustajoki, A. (2007). Tutkijan arkipäivän etiikka (The Everyday Ethics of Researchers). Tampere: Vastapaino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comstock, G. (2013). Research ethics: A philosophical guide to the responsible conduct of research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, N. (1996). Justice and justification—Reflective equilibrium in theory and practice. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Darley, J., & Batson, D. (1973). “From Jerusalem to Jericho”: A study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27(1), 100–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darley, J., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4), 377–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doris, J., & Stich, S. (2014). Moral psychology: Empirical approaches. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/moral-psych-emp/.

  • Eriksson, S., Helgesson, G., & Höglund, A. (2007). Being, doing, and knowing: Developing ethical competence in health care. Journal of Academic Ethics, 5, 207–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1982). Afterword: The subject and power. In H. Dreyfus & P. Rabinow (Eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics: With an Afterword by Michel Foucault. Brighton: The Harvester Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galef, J. (2011). The transplant problem. Youtube (19 June 2014). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyXQarVGBZA.

  • Gendler, T. (2013). Imagination. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2013 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/imagination/.

  • Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Oxford: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P., & The ABC Research Group. (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gronow, J. (2004). Modernin yhteiskunnan mahdollisuus: Sosiaalinen eriytyminen ja esteettisen arvostelukyvyn kehittyminen (The Possibility of Modern Society: Social Specialization and the Development of Aesthetic Judgment). In K. Rahkonen (Ed.), Sosiologian nykykeskusteluja. Gaudeamus: Helsinki.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, M. (2002). Imaginative ethics—Bringing ethical praxis into sharper relief. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 5(1), 33–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hey, S. (2014). Heuristics and meta-heuristics in scientific judgement. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. Advance Access published 24 December 2014. doi:10.1093/bjps/axu045.

  • Hoffmann, Roald. (2012). Part 5: Ethics in science. In J. Kovac & M. Weisberg (Eds.), Roald Hoffmann on the philosophy, art, and science of chemistry (Kindle ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Isen, A., & Levin, P. (1972). Effect of feeling good on helping: Cookies and kindness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21(3), 384–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeličić, H., Phelps, E., & Lerner, R. (2009). Use of missing data methods in longitudinal studies: The persistence of bad practices in developmental psychology. Developmental Psychology, 45(4), 1195–1199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. (1993). Moral imagination: Implications of cognitive science for ethics (Kindle ed.). Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnsson, L., Eriksson, S., Helgesson, G., & Hansson, M. (2014). Making researchers Moral: Why trustworthiness requires more than ethics guidelines and review. Research Ethics, 10(1), 29–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuokkanen, R. (2008). From research as colonialism to reclaiming autonomy—Towards a research ethics framework in Sápmi. Ethics in Sámi and Indigenous Research. Report from a Seminar in Kárášjohka, Norway, Nov 23–24, 2006. Kautokeino: Sami Institute, 48–63.

  • Liljenquist, K., Zhong, C.-B., & Galinsky, A. (2010). The smell of virtue: Clean scents promote reciprocity and charity. Psychological Science, 21(3), 381–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinson, B., Anderson, M., & de Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 436, 737–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martyn, C. (2003). The ethical bureaucracy. QJM, 96, 323–324. doi:10.1093/qjmed/hcg060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, E. (2011). Value pluralism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2011 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/value-pluralism.

  • Mathews, K., & Canon, L. (1975). Environmental noise level as a determinant of helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(4), 571–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDowell, J. (1996). Two Sorts of Naturalism. In R. Hursthouse, G. Lawrence, & W. Quinn (Eds.), Virtues and reasons: Philippa foot and moral theory (pp. 149–179). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mele, A., & Shepherd, J. (2013). Situationism and agency. Journal of Practical Ethics, 1(1), 62–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohr, G. (2001). Der Begriff der Person bei Kant, Fichte und Hegel. In D. Sturma (Ed.), Person: Philosophiegeschichte-theoretische philosophie-praktische philosophie. Paderborn: Mentis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, D., & Allen, G. (2012). Is mandatory research ethics reviewing ethical? Journal of Medical Ethics,. doi:10.1136/medethics-2011-100274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. (1990). Love’s knowledge. Essays on philosophy and literature. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D. (1998). The ethics of science. An introduction. London, New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D. (2005). Some recent challenges to openness and freedom in scientific publication. In M. Korthals & R. Bogers (Eds.), Ethics for life scientists (pp. 85–100). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution of process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology 10. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. (2010). Making the social world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, C. (2005). Moral heuristics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 531–573.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiel, C., Connelly, S., Harkrider, L., Devenport, L., Bagdasarov, Z., Johnson, J., & Mumford, M. (2013). Case-based knowledge and ethics education: Improving learning and transfer through emotionally rich cases. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(1), 265–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wimsatt, W. (2007). Re-engineering philosophy for limited beings: Piecewise approximations to reality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimbardo, P. (2004). A situationist perspective on the psychology of evil: Understanding how good people are transformed into perpetrators. In A. Miller (Ed.), The social psychology of good and evil. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank university lecturer Pekka Louhiala, Professor Asko Tolvanen, university lecturer Hannakaisa Isomäki, doctoral researcher Anne Antoni, anonymous referees and editor Ray Spier for useful comments and tips that helped to improve the manuscript greatly.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Secretary of the Ethics Committee of the University of Jyväskylä, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35 (Y33 465), 40014, Jyväskylä, Finland

    Petteri Niemi

  2. Methodology Centre for Human Sciences and Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35 (Y33 465), 40014, Jyväskylä, Finland

    Petteri Niemi

Authors
  1. Petteri Niemi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Petteri Niemi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Niemi, P. Six Challenges for Ethical Conduct in Science. Sci Eng Ethics 22, 1007–1025 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9676-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9676-7

Keywords

  • Research ethics
  • Ethical guidelines
  • Ethical reviews
  • Human agency
  • Ethical decision making
  • Heuristics
  • Moral disengagement mechanisms
  • Ethical situationism
  • Ethical pluralism
  • Research ethics education