The first question, “Is it true?”, concerns the relationship of the research results to the physical world. Do the data and conclusions really correspond to reality? If data are made up (fabricated) or fixed up (falsified) they are not true.
The second question, “Is it fair?”, concerns the relationship of the research process to the social world. In this category belong issues such as authorship, plagiarism, and informed consent. True data can be gained without informed consent, for example, but it is not fair — it is not just — to gather data in that way.
The third question, “Is it wise?”, concerns the relationship between the research agenda and the present and future world. Will the research lead to a better world, or a worse one? The much debated issue of human cloning falls, I think, into this category. Would the pursuit of this kind of research lead to abhorrent conditions? Or less grandly, would we be better off pursuing one line of research rather than another? We have finite time and money for pursuing research, and the wisdom of research programs is a very valid question in research ethics.
To me, the third question is by far the most interesting of the three; but it is also much the most difficult to answer. For practical and personal reasons, I tend to focus on the first two questions at the workshop I run and when I am speaking to people such as yourself; and this is what I will do today.
With this as an introduction, I will try to address the following questions regarding the responsible conduct of research:
Am I serious about this? Yes and no. Yes, because the responsible conduct of science is vitally important. Science touches everyone’s life nowadays, and the responsible conduct of research concerns everyone. Public money funds most research. No one is too young or too old to learn something about research ethics. Research ethics is not static; it is dynamic, constantly changing, and should be constantly evaluated, and so it cannot be learned once and for all, like the periodic table. Any time research techniques are taught, the responsible use of those techniques should be taught.
Then again, I am not completely serious about this — that research ethics should be taught everywhere by everyone — because I know it is not practical. Let me, then, sketch out a few more limited and practical ideas.
Who should be taught the responsible conduct of research? Undergraduate students can be taught research ethics. In universities in which science is a requirement for all students — as it was in my college — research ethics should be woven in with the required science courses. Let me give one example. When I took chemistry as a first-year college student, I was taught that my lab notebook was to be kept a certain way. It had to be kept in a bound notebook; it had to be written in ink; every entry had to be dated; I was not allowed to erase anything, or tear out a page; if I crossed anything out, I had to make a notation explaining why I crossed it out. At the time, these restrictions taught me a very clear lesson about the conduct of research: Scientists are not allowed to make mistakes. Fear of making mistakes made me dislike chemistry lab, and it led many of my classmates to cheat.
My teacher missed a very good opportunity to teach me something important about science and, simultaneously, about research ethics. I understand now, as I did not then, that the strictures on keeping a notebook are intended to ensure an accurate historical record of my research, as it actually happened — mistakes and all — in detail, with no details lost or crossed out — what actually happened, not what I wish had happened or what I realized later I should have done. What I wished had happened had no place in my notebook (except, perhaps, under the heading, “What I wish had happened”); what I should have done is the fodder for the next experiment.
This example is intended to show that teaching how to do science and how to do science ethically can be and should be part of the same process; it need not be an add-on, it need not take extra time. It does take a small amount of attention on the part of the teacher, though, for if one teaches the rules of notebook keeping without teaching why those rules exist, the wrong lesson is taught. I suspect the same is true for many other aspects of scientific research.
Graduate students and postdoctoral fellows need training in research ethics as well. When time and resources allow, laboratory technicians and support staff should receive appropriate training in research ethics. Junior and senior faculty members should be encouraged to take training — perhaps in forms like this workshop, perhaps in the form of teaching their own course or unit on research ethics. Perhaps both. The best way to learn a topic is to teach it.
What settings are appropriate for teaching research ethics? As you have gathered, I would like to see research ethics taught in every possible forum. But let me list a few:
This is an important point. Science and medical school curricula are tight. Finding time and personnel to teach research ethics can be difficult. But it is worth the effort, and any start, no matter how modest, is better than nothing. I like to tell people never to underestimate the power of the ripple effect. You are interested in research ethics; perhaps no one else in your department or university thinks it is worth teaching. But if you make the effort to raise these issues with students, even in an informal and small way, those students will talk to other students about it, and other faculty members will hear about it, and it will become apparent — so I have heard time and again — that students are very interested in and concerned about these issues. In time, student demand will grow, other faculty members will become interested, funding and time in the curriculum will be found.
When should the responsible conduct of research be taught? Answers to this question are both implicit and explicit in what I’ve said so far. Let me speak to a limited situation: You can introduce research ethics into the curriculum at one time and one time only. When should it be? In my opinion, developed after speaking with many scientists, it should be in the third or fourth year of graduate study. First-year graduate students are busy learning many other things; ideally, ethics should be intertwined with these other things. But issues more complex and subtle than keeping laboratory notebooks — issues such as authorship, intellectual property, conflict of interest — are largely meaningless to younger graduate students. These kinds of issues, which some of them may not encounter in their careers as students, should be discussed explicitly when the students start doing serious, original research of their own. It is a very important part of their professional development, and it is cruel — even unethical — to allow them to enter the professional world without preparing them to deal with these sometimes difficult problems.
Who should teach the responsible conduct of science? Again, the answer is implicit in all of the above. Let me make it a bit more explicit. Scientists should teach research ethics. Chemistry students should learn research ethics from chemistry professors. Biology students should learn it from biologists.
Scientists must not leave it to outsiders — ethicists from the philosophy department, or the department of religious studies, or the Poynter Center — to teach research ethics. Having outsiders do the only teaching on research ethics sends a clear message to science students that scientists do not care about research ethics, that it is a garbage course and a waste of their time.
Please note that the above paragraph applies only when we are talking about the only course, or the required course, on research ethics. Ethicists can serve a useful function. They can teach elective courses, or they can teach units of required courses, or they can team teach with scientists. The important point here is that scientists have to be seen to be deeply concerned with these issues for the students to take them seriously.
I think it is also true that people with training in ethics will tend not to teach research ethics very well, unless they also have experience or training in science. In the past this was a rare combination, but perhaps less so today.
I suppose I should also say a word about what should be taught. We have covered many topics already in this workshop, and I will not repeat them now. But I want to mention one skill that students need to learn and need to discuss with teachers they can trust. What should one do, how should one act, if one encounters an instance of unethical research? In the United States this is sometimes called “whistleblowing.” I do not like this word; the reasons are too complex to bother you with today. The important point is that at least some of your students who become scientists will encounter what they take to be unethical research practices. This is a very difficult situation and our instincts about how to deal with it are often all wrong. Let me outline very briefly the advice I would give students on this topic.
First, be careful. Accusing someone of misconduct in science can be the end of your career, whether you are right or wrong. If you are careful, however, you can deal with the situation in a way that keeps you reasonably safe.
Second, make sure you know what is really going on. It may look like unethical conduct, but you may be mistaken either about the facts (what the person is actually doing) or your interpretation (that what the person is doing is unethical).
Third, keep a journal. The instant you think you see something unethical going on, write it down, with a date, in detail, with names. Keep this journal up to date and put original documents or copies with it — documents such as research protocols, laboratory notes, memos, etc.
Fourth, talk to a trustworthy, knowledgeable person about it, someone who is not too close to the problem.
Fifth, explore multiple ways of dealing with the problem. Almost all universities have formal procedures for dealing with allegations of misconduct. Learn what they are. There are also informal ways of dealing with these matters, and informal approaches are often preferable.
All of this assumes that the problem does not pose an immediate risk
of harm to people. If it does pose an immediate risk of harm, you cannot
be as leisurely as this procedure implies; you must act quickly. But few
other forms of research misconduct require quick action at the risk of
your own career.
Teaching Research Ethics home page