Scientific and Academic
Research Integrity
By
Robenson W. Prime, Peter Olen, and Chris Cochran
PHI 3941: Philosophy Practicum
Dr. Stanlick
Introduction
By: Robenson W. Prime, Peter Olen, and Chris Cochran
“The
purpose of the universities that support extensive research program is changing
– inevitably and inexorably, say some leading analysts – to meet an ever
greater need for money.” This is a
remark made by Sheldom Krimsky, a physicist, philosopher, and policy analyst at
the
In
a world where majority of the population gets their knowledge from scientific
research and Universities, is there any credibility and value to knowledge once
it is determined by how much one gets paid?
In this paper, my attempt is to talk about some of the moral
implications that are involved in scientific research through the use of
universities and scientific industries and how these pseudo-research have
evolved in our society in such a way that we don’t even realize that it’s
happening.
Prior to talking about the rather
broad concept of “integrity in science” we must hold an idea of what we’re
talking about when we say “science”.
Marie-Helene Parizeau makes this exact point when she draws the
distinction between “traditional science” and “techno-science” (Parizeau,
161). The question I am to answer in
this short essay is how
far into the
theoretical must we abstract science to have a concept of itself and what
practical moral consequences in research integrity does this ideal picture of
scientific practice actually bring into the fray?
The last section of this paper will focus on academic research and integrity. It will also show how the Internet has been both good and bad academic research. Finishing with an example of academic integrity and how it can adversely affect hiring practices.
University Research and Its Moral Implications
By: Robenson Prime
As it is widely known, universities have a major social responsibility to educate the population and to provide the community with scientific knowledge and discovery. Theoretically, these knowledge and research are to be true, explicit and unbiased. That is, the process in which the research is being conducted and the results that follow must be completely independent of the scientists’ and the universities’ character. However, this is not the case. As Krimsky puts it, “Universities have given up their social responsibilities to accommodate a new purpose – the privatization of knowledge, by engaging in multimillion dollar contracts with industries that demand the rights to negotiate licenses from any subsequent discovery.”
Evidently,
universities have developed a business relationship with industries in which
funds are being released to engage in private research that are to be kept
secret. For example, when a well known physician by the name of David Healy
raised concerns about the risks of suicide by consuming a particular pill, his
new appointment as clinical director of the
An appropriate question to ask is why would the university fire her if she was concerned about the health of the public? How can a University fire an employee for doing their job? These are the kind of questions we are faced with which bring about some ethical and moral concerns into the realm of science. Later on in the story about Dr Olivieri, it was told that the university would have lost millions of dollars had she published the article. Hence, as it may be observed, the secrecy that is involved in science is enormous. The purpose of scientific research seems to have taken a new turn, completely opposite of its original intention. Nevertheless, scientists and academic leaders have denied the unpleasant statements regarding their intimate bond with scientific industries. They try to justify their action by presenting an argument that seems to be reasonable, yet inapplicable by arguing that: “Science aims to acquire knowledge but needs money to invest in research. Industry wants to develop products for a profit, but needs a sound base of knowledge on which to do so. In other words both activities need each other.” There is absolutely no problem with this justification, but the problem is that the argument doesn’t answer the lack of integrity that is involved within those researches. What these arguments fail to explain, however, is the cause for firing employees who predict the problem of a particular product and attempt to inform the public about it. Is that morally acceptable?
Looking at this problem from a utilitarian point of view, is hiding secrets about scientific research in the benefit of the majority? Is that the greatest good? On the contrary, instead of thinking about the dollars that will go into the pockets of those who are already well and wealthy, we have to think about the majority of the population who will consume that particular product. At this point in time in the history of humanity, we have become obsessed with power and money to the extent that, it seems to be the case people will do anything to get wealth even though it costs a human life. In addition to that, it can be quite repulsive to realize those institutions are established to help and assist the community, the ones we are suppose to trust and rely on, are engaged in corrupted businesses such as creating and making up false findings from a particular research funded by big industries.
Therefore, if we know for a fact that not all scientists’ research are completely accurate, and that we have a multitude number of scientists in the business, how can we prevent this problem from existing? What kind of standards of conduct that can be established to alleviate this corruption? The answer to these questions might be slightly difficult to find, because, we do have codes of conducts that scientists must follow when ever they are practicing science. Ironically enough, those who are responsible for monitoring the research, being practiced by scientists, may have over looked some things and didn’t notice anything. According the National Academy of Sciences Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research, “The community of scientists is bound by a set of values, traditions and standards that embody honest, integrity, objectivity and collegiality. These values are in the particular principles and practices characteristic of specific scientific disciplines.”
By: Peter Olen
Prior to talking about the rather broad concept of “integrity in scientific research” we must hold an idea of what we’re talking about when we say “science”. Marie-Helene Parizeau makes this exact point when she draws the distinction between “traditional science” and “techno-science” (Parizeau, 161). The questions that will be addressed in this short essay is how far into the theoretical must we abstract science to have a concept of itself and what practical moral questions in research integrity does this picture of scientific practice actually bring into the fray?
Though arguments over how science should be done have been raging ever since it was all grouped under the name, “natural philosophy” our focus centers on the more contemporary debates of what exactly constitutes scientific practice today. Even in the contemporary arguments there exists various points of contention, such as what counts as evidence, what we consider to be valid methodology, what actually is science, and so on. One of the biggest debates over such issues in the philosophy of science stems from the writings of Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper who both argued for different ways of interpreting what qualifies as science; let alone research. The problem, for the scope of this paper, is that both men focus more on how we should view science historically and not so much on how it’s being done today or should be done in the future. To define scientific research integrity we need what could be called a working concept of scientific practice and the moral questions surrounding it. More historically based observations will not help us clarify the contemporary ethical problems in scientific practice.
Parizeau paints the contemporary picture with broad strokes, yet it seems to be enough to create a clear picture of how we use to do science opposed to the present method. The first distinction she sets is that of “traditional science”. In this view of science we see more of a classical or idealistic practice of how to go about research. We can see the motivating efforts of such solitary “research for the sake of knowledge” (Parizeau, 163) as being one of the sole traditional drives. This view is represented by the idea of “solitary scholar, alone with his books and his instruments” (Parizeau, 161). The hidden assumption behind the specter of the traditional scientist is that one’s passion for truth and knowledge will keep one on the straight and narrow, so to speak.
Parizeau named the second distinction “techno-science” the contemporary kind of science that is being practiced today where we see an emphasis on operational technique, advanced technology, and teams of researchers over solitary genius and imagination in experimentation (Parizeau, 161). The other difference we find in the contemporary brand of science is the elimination of the idea of neutrality or complete objectivity in scientific practice. Not only a loss of objectivity, but clear connections related to market economy and private industry that give researchers different goals then simply research for truth’s sake alone. Yet how did we lose such a view?
One of the, but certainly not the only, shifts in methodology and thought could be seen as the realization of the importance, or unalienable effect of emotion on every human being; thus the elimination of the purely objective realm in science. One of the interesting effects of a feminist perspective on the philosophy of science has been the emphasis of such a point. In techno-science we could begin to admit, “…that emotion, like sensory perception, is necessary for human survival” (Jaggar, 352) thus destroying the idea of separating emotion from logic or reasoning in research. Antonio Damasio offers a similar perspective in cognitive research. The classical picture of logic being separated from emotion in all ways seems to be out-dated in the contemporary state of affairs. Though we have two sketches of science (one past and one present) where does that leave integrity?
Opposed to the view presented by Maria-Helene Parizeau, it would seem to make more sense to warn of the direct dangers to integrity opposed to fleshing out the strict integrity of science in and of itself. From a practical standpoint, such distinctions will, more likely than not, fail because the general battle cry from those who are considered cheaters, or liars, would be to define integrity in a different way. The advice for integrity and the way to avoid ethical pitfalls without prescribing to a specific theory would be thus: Despite changing winds in different psychological and technological times, science needs a monitor. Whether it be government, philosophy, or science itself; upholding integrity depends upon the will of others involved or interested in the field. Due to the ever-shifting conditions in which science operates it would be foolish to continue on trying to hold an ever-evolving field to universal standards. In the post-modern era in which philosophy is being written to ignore the challenges of relativism and particularism to truth in science or ethics would be a misstep. Instead of trying to hold dearly to more traditional principles; the most useful or successful path for scientific integrity maybe to bend and evolve with the times as they continue to do the same.
Speaking specifically of techno-science, the balance between the admissions of a less than objective realm, affected by emotion, and the traditional objectivity we crave is one of the key factors in maintaining research integrity. To have a full disclosure policy (similar to what our media is trying to do now with political bias) concerning what areas and biases the researchers are bringing to the table maybe a step in the right direction. The balancing of government controlled science and the interest of private industry may also be an area to try and uphold integrity for science, especially in the eye of the public. While science may not be able to make the traditional kinds of claims to objectivity it was use to, laying all of one’s cards on the table maybe the second best option.
Academic Research
By: Chris Cochran
My section of this paper will focus
on academic research and integrity. First,
let me define what academic research is?
According to Wikipedia.com:
“Academia is a general term for the whole of higher education
and research. The word comes from the Greek referring to the
greater body of knowledge, its development and transmission
across generations. (“Academic”) Research is an active, diligent
and systematic process of inquiry in order to discover, interpret
or revise facts, events, behaviors, or theories, or to make
practical applications with the help of such facts, laws or theories.
The term "research" is also used to describe the collection of
information
about a particular subject.” (“Research”)
Before
the internet became widely available, academic research was done primarily in
libraries and universities. A real
person was involved in going through books, journals, and papers written by
scholars on whatever subject they were researching. This information was peer reviewed and
critiqued with impunity. But now with
the massive onslaught of information that is available on the internet,
academic research has both prospered and declined at the same time.
I know it sounds like a contradiction. How can academic research both prosper and decline at the same time? While it is true that the internet has helped in getting new information out to the public and available for peer review; the quality of material that is getting published has been greatly diminished in the past ten years. The pseudo-information available online is growing everyday. People like the fact that they can voice their opinions and be heard by potential millions of people. Now, anybody with access to the internet can publish any material they want to and make it look like anything they want. What I mean by this is that the material can appear to be legitimate, when in fact it could have been produced by some sixteen year old kid making it all up with no evidence, truth, or research, backing up his information.
About six years ago, I remember a
story about a kid who got online at the Motley Fool web site, a financial
company, and kept submitting false information about a company that he wanted
to buy stock in. The information was
very damaging to the company. The stock
price fell dramatically and the kid bought a lot of stock in that company. After buying the stock, the kid stopped
spreading false rumors about the company and the stock price rose up again to
its normal selling price. After a few
months of waiting, the kid cashed in all his stock and made a killing. This peaked the interest of the traders, and
the F.C.C., and eventually the kid was caught.
This just goes to show what can happen online. Anyone can post any information they
want. It is up to everyone who uses the
information to check the source and verify if it is legitimate or not.
There
is still legitimate academic research being conducted, and it can be found on
the web, but finding it can sometimes be tricky. Usually, if you have access to a university’s
library online, then you are heading in the right direction. Universities and colleges tend to keep the
information they store up to date and valid.
But then again, you must keep in mind that there are non-brick and
mortar universities out there claiming to have valid information. Hundreds of sites have popped up recently
claiming that they can get you a degree in just about any field in half the
time it takes to get a normal degree.
Oh, and they can do this all online for a nominal fee. Every time I log onto Yahoo to check my
email, I see ads for getting a degree online.
What
type of quality can we really expect if everything is done online? If research is taken out of the hands of the
people who diligently look through books, journals, and papers written by
scholars, then what information will be used as a resource? I’m not saying that academic research can’t
be done online. A lot of good
information is online waiting to be found and utilized. What I am saying is that we need to not limit
ourselves to only what is online. An
academic researcher should take the time to go to the library and look stuff
up. The internet can be used as a
secondary source of confirmation to a subject, but it shouldn’t be the primary
or sole resource material used.
This
reminds me of a friend of mine who is graduating this semester from U.C.F. with
a degree in accounting. I’ll call her
Lisa; her real name will be kept confidential.
About four months ago, Lisa got a job working part-time in an accounting
office. It was her first job and she
wanted to know what it was like to work in accounting before she graduates this
May. Very noble of her if you ask
me. The thing is, she was asked to
reconcile a customers bank statement one day and not only did she not know how
to do it, but she didn’t know what the word reconcile meant. I’m trying hard not to laugh here, but I
can’t help it. What exactly is being
taught to future accountants at U.C.F.?
It makes one wonder. If I were an
employer, I wouldn’t hire people that didn’t know what they were doing. Also, if Lisa were indicative of the type of
graduate from U.C.F., then I would seriously consider not hiring anybody with a
degree from U.C.F. Sure, she is very
beautiful, but looks alone don’t constitute the ability to get a degree. Or do they?
By: Robenson W. Prime, Peter Olen, and Chris Cochran
Since, now we see that we cannot just accept whatever scientific results presents to us as a community, it is our responsibility to educate ourselves in a fashion that will enable us to filter the good from the bad. Science is supposed to be an objective and unbiased discipline, and yet that is not the case. Universities and big pharmaceutical industries have established a business bond in which one assists the other and it becomes a win-win situation; Universities create the research through major funding from the industries, and the industries have the research to back up their findings so they can sell their product regardless of its accuracy. Hence I must conclude with this question: If the search for truth is corrupted, can the truth be truly true?
Though there maybe no one exact answer on how to uphold integrity in scientific research, the concept of building safeguards, or issuing warnings based upon current practices of science can help solve some of the problems. The only way, short of finding a specific and clear ethical theory for all of science to adopt, to universally try and uphold integrity in science would be to continue a watch over all interests from both the in and outside while being mindful of our changes in tradition. The key factor in this ever-evolving field is to try and keep the ethical inline with the practices of the time. As science is a living document so too should the ethical guidelines be an ever-changing document by which we hold science accountable to itself as well as society.
Academic integrity is fundamental to our growth as a society. If we fail to recognize this, then we are doomed to live through our own failures because nothing will be advanced and our society will fall behind the rest of the world in technology. If people choose the easy way out and decide not to follow up on their sources to make sure they are legitimate, then what is the point of having sources in the first place? Why not just make up your own data and call it kosher?
The story about Lisa is not just a one time scenario. You can be sure that this happens all the time at many different schools. Lisa is either ignorant of the fact that she is not properly prepared to graduate or she has no academic integrity and will accept her degree knowing full well that she did not earn it. She may rationalize accepting the degree because she went through the motions at U.C.F. and followed their rules. But in reality, her degree is worthless. This brings me to another point. If universities don’t care about the information that a student learns and gives them a diploma, then what is this saying about the quality of the degree? The degree is worthless and as employers start to figure this out, they will stop hiring people with degrees from those universities. If academic integrity were being followed, then none of this would happen. People would take pride in their work and in their degree.
Jaggar, Alison. The Myth of
Dispassionate Investigation. Ed. Arthur Zucker.
Krimsky, Sheldon. “The Dawn of Mc Science”. Volume 51, Number 4.
Mebeau, Muriel J. “Moral Reasoning in Scientific Research”: Cases for Teaching ` Assessment.
Parizeau, Maria-Helene. Scientific Integrity. Ed. Alan Montefiore
and David Vines.
Wikipedia, the Free
Encyclopedia.
Wikipedia, the Free
Encyclopedia.