The Clash Between Scientific Skepticism and Ethics Regulations

Abstract

Scientific training is steeped in skepticism. This is healthy for the profession because it leads to constant questioning of results, a push to consider as many control experiments as possible, and a need to double-check and verify. Yet this same trait can lead scientists to doubt a claim that a colleague has misrepresented data. Anyone can make a mistake, but the idea that a scientist would consciously, or even recklessly, alter data or make false statements about data is anathema. It is, therefore, easier to doubt the motives of someone who raises such an objection than to believe the claim that a fellow scientist has violated the norms in such an egregious manner. People require sufficient time to delve into the facts to overcome such doubts. Given the pressures scientists face and the extreme focus they have learned is essential, there is no time for distractions. To get past the bias of skepticism of motives requires sufficient time to study a matter deeply, sometimes as deeply as one’s own research. These barriers become practically insurmountable when one adds the requirement to prove intent to falsify, in order to have a finding of research misconduct. For these reasons, there is a great need for reform of the definition of misconduct and an independent scientific organization that examines allegations of falsification and fabrication.

“From time to time […] one or another agency polls the American public concerning those communities within our society who are trusted or found credible – the Congress, physicians, bankers, newspapers and scientists. Invariably, scientists turn out to be close to the top of the chart of those viewed credible and trustworthy. Although there have been a few regrettable incidents, I continue to believe that confidence is well deserved.”

Philip Handler, Testimony in Hearings for the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight of the U.S. Congress, March 31, 1981