ETHICS IN SCIENCE

 ETHICS IN SCIENCE

 ETHICS IN SCIENCE

 ETHICS IN SCIENCE

 Ethics in Science
Doctors draft priority list for
no care during pandemic
 People older than 85.

 Those with severe trauma, which could include critical injuries

from car crashes and shootings.

 Severely burned patients older than 60.

 Those with severe mental impairment, which could include

advanced Alzheimer's disease.

 Those with a severe chronic disease, such as advanced heart

failure, lung disease or poorly controlled diabetes.
Many Scientists Admit to Misconduct

 Few scientists fabricate results from

scratch or flatly plagiarize the work of
others, but a surprising number engage in
troubling degrees of fact-bending or
deceit, according to the first large-scale
survey of scientific misbehavior.

 More than 5 percent of scientists

answering a confidential questionnaire
admitted to having tossed out data
because the information contradicted
their previous research or said they had
circumvented some human research
protections.
Definition
 Ethics is the accommodation of the “me”
with the “them”

 Ethics is the optimization of individual

activity within Society
Ethical Standards – Whom Do
They Serve?
 Research Ethics – protects the study
patient or subject, or the community

 Ethics of Scientific Practice – protects the

“integrity” of the scientific process
 Why Does Scientific
Misconduct Matter?
 Morally wrong
 Waste of resources
 Potentially harmful
 Erodes public confidence
 Endangers independence of science
 Cardinal Sins of Ethical
Conduct of Science
 Falsification

 Fabrication

 Plagiarism
Fabrication and Falsification
 Danger to Science
 Undermines integrity
 Conclusions not justified

 Unjustified career advancement

 Violates moral precepts

 Removes incentive
 Bias More Common Than
Lying (bias=lying?)
 “Intended Effect” – likely to find the
effect or outcome you “intend” to find
 Scientific measures to guard against
bias – but hardly foolproof
 Pressure for “best available care” may
limit repeat of trials, but the essential
element of scientific method is
reproducibility
 Plagiarism
 Danger to Science
 Misallocation of credit
 Unnecessary publications

 Thievery and lying

 Integrity and character of scientist

questioned
 Social Pressures for
Misconduct and Bias

 Publication and career advancement

pressures
 Funding pressures
 Mentor pressures
 Unreasonable expectations
 Create Social Conditions
Favoring Ethical Behavior
 Mentor models good behavior
 Mentor spends time with trainee
 Mentor does not exert unreasonable
pressure for productivity
 Promotion not based upon number of
papers
 Contrary views more accepted
 Integrity needs to be nurtured
The Ethical Question
 The ethical question is one of individual
behavior with respect to the social
structure

 An isolated person has no need for ethics

Ethics is Utilitarian
 The ethical question asks,”does it work?”

 “does it work” implies pragmatism and

utilitarianism; i.e.,is the ethical decision
realistic and useful
Origin of ethics
 Ethics arises out of competition between
individual values within a society
 Values are what is important to the
individual
 Groups have no values per se. The
values of a group is a compromise taken
over the values of group members
Ethical Choices of the Scienctist
 What is an ethical choice?
 What is an ethical goal?
 Can one have non-ethical choices and an
ethical goal? This is Sophie’s Choice
 Can one have ethical choices and a non-
ethical goal? Means justify the ends
Sophie’s Choice
Her choice, Sophie’s
choice given to her
by a Nazi medical
doctor was to choose
which of her children
dies in concentration
camp gas chamber
Choice Definition
 Choice is the path one takes to the goal
 There are multiple paths
 The are multiple goals some patent, some
recondite
 Ethical responsibility and choice are a
canonical couple
Game of Choices
Choices

start finish
Ignorance of a Choice or Goal
is no Excuse
 List and know all possible choices both ethical
and non-ethical
 List and know consequences of Choice
 Know the goal or goals
 List and know consequences of obtaining or not
obtaining goal
 Make choice
 Take responsibility for choice
Limitation of free Choice
 Choices are limited by perception

 If I see an armed man receiving money

from another, am I perceiving a robbery or
am I perceiving Brink’s officer taking
money off to a vault?
 Taking action on the former perception
especially If I’m armed could be a disaster
Guidelines
 Honesty
 Careful experimental technique
 Non-manipulation treatment of data
 Continual development of knowledge and skills
 Willing to change hypothesis in face of new evidence
 Willing to challenge ones hypothesis through falsification
 Avoids intimidation, rhetoric, propaganda, and
misrepresentation
 Does not appeal to authority
Guidelines
 Recognizes the consequence of ones research
 Communicates through peer reviewed journals of meetings
 Need to unify disparate data
 Forms hypothesis consistent with existing body of knowledge
 Avoids conflict of interest
 Provides experimental details so work is reproducible by others
skilled in the art
 Assigns credit where credit is due
 Does not falsify or manipulates data
 Does not plagiarize works of others or claims as own
 Socially aware
Case histories
 You are a graduate student working for a leading astronomer.
Your job is to use a sophisticated radio telescope the
astronomer designed for observing variable radio sources in
the universe. After several weeks of analyzing data, you
realize you have discovered a totally new kind of star -- one
that provides evidence for the origin of the universe. Your
boss congratulates you for your fine work, writes a major
report on it, and wins a Nobel Prize. What should you do?
Case histories
Being Scooped by Your Own Work
 You are a young scientist who recently sent a paper based
on your research in adolescent anorexia to an important
scientific journal to be considered for publication. As is
the custom, the journal's editor sends the paper out for
review to other experts in the field. After several weeks he
returns the paper to you, rejecting it because he claims that
its reviewers found that "it contains several major errors
and misinterpretations." Then, several months later, in
another journal you find an article containing data almost
identical to your own, and using sentences and
descriptions similar to yours. What should you do?
Case histories A "Doctored" Doctorate?

 You are a graduate student working on a Ph.D. in chemistry at a

prestigious university. A good friend of yours who is a graduate
student in the same lab reveals to you that he hasn't done all the
experiments he said he did, and that a substantial part of his data
has been doctored to make it look like it is based on original
work. What should you do?
Case histories Preempting Theft
 A scientist doing research on sickle cell disease finds a way to produce a
chemical from genetically changed mice that reduces the symptoms of sickle
cell disease in many of its victims. Because he recognizes that he could earn a
lot of money if the chemical is produced commercially, he does not want to
reveal some of the details of the procedure for production. He submits a paper
for publication in which he deliberately includes an incorrect gene sequences.
The paper is well written and plausible, and unless the referees attempt to
clone the gene themselves, they would have no way of knowing of the
deliberate error. When the paper is accepted for publication, the scientist will
correct the error. Is the scientist justified in misrepresenting his data? --What if
he withholds the proper sequence from the final publication?
Case histories Editorial Responsibility
You are editor of a prestigious scientific journal that is
respected around the world for its timely, accurate
reporting. A story is "leaked" to you by a confidential
source that provides strong evidence that a major scientist
working on HIV (the AIDS virus) has reported false data
in his experiments. What should you do?
Case histories Science for Whom?
 You are a scientist at a major university who has
discovered a chemical broth that makes it easy to
grow the virus that causes AIDS in a laboratory
flask. What will you do? --share the recipe
immediately with all laboratories that need it for
AIDS research? --or publish first? --or solicit offers
from pharmaceutical companies who might want to
market the broth?
Case histories Using Nazi Data
 During the early part of World War II the Nazi's lost many pilots during
the Battle of Britain in the icy waters of the English Channel. On land
large numbers of Germans froze on the Russian front.
 The Nazi's decided to start cold experiments at Dachau concentration
camp in mid-August of 1942. They conducted about 400 different
experiments using approximately 300 prisoners.
 The experiments involved leaving the people in vats of icy water for
hours or in the freezing outdoors. The Nazi's measured their changes in
blood, urine, spinal fluid, muscle reflexes, heart action and body
temperature.
Case histories Using Nazi Data
 When the patients' temperatures dropped below 79.7 degrees
F, various ways of rewarming were tried. Rapid rewarming
proved most effective. Slow rewarming was not very
effective and alcohol actually hastened cooling. Up to 100
prisoners died during these experiments.
 Approximately 1000 people die of exposure to cold in the
U.S. every year. No current data is available as complete or
as accurate as that of the Nazi's. It was determined that the
Nazi method of rapid rewarming in hot water be used as the
treatment of choice by the Air-Sea Rescue Services of the
U.S. Armed Forces.
Case histories Renegade Research?
 Thomas Creighton, a 33-year-old mechanic, was
dying of heart disease. The surgeons at the
University of Arizona performed a heart transplant
on him, but the new heart was rejected.
 Instead of waiting two hours to use the approved
Jarvik-7 artificial heart, they implanted an
unauthorized artificial heart.
Case histories Renegade Research?
 Two hours after the surgery, the doctors removed the
artificial heart and implanted a second human heart. This
second heart transplant also failed.
 Mr. Creighton died forty-six hours after the first surgery. The
Food and Drug Administration investigated, but took no
action against the surgeons involved.
 If the doctors were found guilty of performing an
unauthorized experiment on a patient, what action should be
taken against them? Would the action be the same if the
patient had not died?
Case histories
To Medicate or Not to Medicate

 Terry Kelly received a National Institute of Mental Health

grant for research in the Western Tropics. As part of her
personal gear, she took along a considerable amount of
medication, which her physician had prescribed for use,
should Kelly find herself in an active malaria region. Later,
after settling into a village, Kelly became aware that many of
the local people were quite ill with malaria.
 Kelly's Dilemma: Since she had such a large supply of
medication, much more than she needed for her personal use,
should she distribute the surplus to her hosts?
Case histories
To Medicate or Not to Medicate
 Kelly's Decision
 Kelly decided not to give any medication to the
villagers who were exhibiting symptoms of malaria,
even though she had a considerable surplus in her
personal supply. She reasoned that since the
medication did not confer permanent immunity to the
disease and because she would not be present to
provide medication during future outbreaks of the
disease, it was more important to allow affected
villagers to develop their own resistance to malaria
"naturally.
Case histories
INDUSTRIAL SPONSORSHIP OF ACADEMIC
RESEARCH
 Sandra was excited about being accepted as a
graduate student in the laboratory of Dr. Frederick, a
leading scholar in the field, and she embarked on her
assigned research project eagerly. But after a few
months she began to have misgivings. Though part
of Dr. Frederick's work was supported by federal
grants, the project on which she was working was
totally supported by a grant from a single company..
Case histories
INDUSTRIAL SPONSORSHIP OF ACADEMIC
RESEARCH

 Sandra had known this before coming to the lab and

had not thought it would be a problem. But she had
not known that Dr. Frederick also had a major
consulting agreement with the company. She also
heard from other graduate students that when it came
time to publish her work, any paper would be subject
to review by the company to determine if any of her
work was patentable
Case histories
A CONFLICT OF INTEREST

 John, a third-year graduate student, is participating in a

department-wide seminar where students, post-docs, and faculty
members discuss work in progress. An assistant professor prefaces
her comments by saying that the work she is about to discuss is
sponsored by both a federal grant and a biotechnology firm for
which she consults. In the course of the talk John realizes that he
has been working on a technique that could make a major
contribution to the work being discussed. But his faculty advisor
consults for a different, and competing, biotechnology firm.
Case histories The Selection of Data
 Deborah, a third-year graduate student, and
Kathleen, a postdoc, have made a series of
measurements on a new experimental semiconductor
material using an expensive neutron source at a
national laboratory. When they get back to their own
laboratory and examine the data, they get the
following data points. A newly proposed theory
predicts results indicated by the curve.
Case histories The Selection of Data
 During the measurements at the national laboratory,
Deborah and Kathleen observed that there were
power fluctuations they could not control or predict.
Furthermore, they discussed their work with another
group doing similar experiments, and they knew that
the other group had gotten results confirming the
theoretical prediction and was writing a manuscript
describing their results.
A Selection of Data
Case histories The Selection of Data
 In writing up their own results for publication, Kathleen
suggests dropping the two anomalous data points near the
abscissa (the solid squares) from the published graph and
from a statistical analysis. She proposes that the existence of
the data points be mentioned in the paper as possibly due to
power fluctuations and being outside the expected standard
deviation calculated from the remaining data points. "These
two runs," she argues to Deborah, "were obviously wrong."
Groups and Individuals
 Groups are not creative

 Groups provide resources

 Groups invest in individuals seeking a

return on the investment both fiscally and
culturally
Reward
 Individuals are seldom rewarded by the
group in true proportion to their
contribution
 The group most of the time doesn’t
understand the investment and generally
undervalues it and over values the group
contribution
Edison
 Thomas Alva Edison’s greatest invention
was not the phonograph, or light bulb,or
Edison effect (which he did not
understand or appreciate) or the
multiplexed stock ticker. His greatest
contribution was the modern research
organization
 Edison founded General Electric and their
famous Knolls laboratory
Thomas Alva Edison
Modern Research Laboratory
(MRL)
 MRL resembles the pre-renaissance world in
that the individual is less important than the
team
 Individual expression is suspect and subsumed
by team expression
 Team player trumps the individual player
 MRL occurs both in the academic and business
worlds
Entrepreneurship
 In opposition to the Edison model for
Research is Entrepreneurship

 Entrepreneurship is an attempt by the

individual to obtain a larger”piece of the
pie”
Ethics of Science
 Below is a list of ethical guidelines
 We shall take these guidelines and apply
them to case histories
 We shall examine the whether guidelines

 Work in a modern research laboratory

Application of Guidelines to
MRL
 Most patents written today are not full or honest
disclosures. SOP
 Many MRL’s do not patent but keep information as
trade secrets
 Claims form any drugs’ effectiveness overstated; e.g.,
vitamins
 Often electronic products introduced into market with
the intension to allow the end-user identify the “bugs”
 MRL makes little provisions for scientist to keep up with
new knowledge
Application of Guidelines to
MRL
 MRL are authority based
 MRL make few real world provisions to reward
inventors
 Frequently inventions are appropriated by
others allowing the court to decide ownership
TB, Japan
 80% of patents and publication are fabrications
Modern Values
 Modern science, Modern art, and modern
society arose when individual values were
recognized as valid and not subservient to
the group
 Group science and group art is dreadful,
political, and programmatic
 Only individuals are creative. Society
benefits from individual creativity
Pre-Renaissance
 during the pre-renaissance, the social
structure, the church, or state claimed
hegemony over the individual. Such
things happen today in totalitarian states