The ethical transgressions discussed in earlier sections-such as misallocation of credit or errors arising from negligence-are matters that generally remain internal to the scientific community. Even infractions that may seem minor at the time can end up being severely punished. Anyone who engages in any of these practices is putting his or her scientific career at risk. These acts of scientific misconduct not only undermine progress but the entire set of values on which the scientific enterprise rests. Making up data or results (fabrication), changing or misreporting data or results (falsification), and using the ideas or words of another person without giving appropriate credit (plagiarism)-all strike at the heart of the values on which science is based. If a single paper is published, how can they emphasize to the review committees and funding agencies their various roles and the importance of the paper?īeyond honest errors and errors caused through negligence are a third category of errors: those that involve deception. If they decided to publish a single paper, how should the listing of authors be handled? If the experiments are part of a series, are Paula and her students justified in not publishing them together? They argue that one paper encompassing all the results would be too long and complex and might damage their career opportunities because they would not be able to point to a paper on which they were first authors.
#Conduct together error series#
Paula's students, on the other hand, strongly suggest that a series of papers be prepared. Paula favors the first option, arguing that a single publication in a more visible journal would better suit all of their purposes. They could write a single paper with one first author that would describe the experiments in a comprehensive manner, or they could write a series of shorter, less complete papers so that each student could be a first author. Now it is time to write up the experiments for publication, but the students and Paula must first make an important decision. During that time, the experiments have been written up in various posters, abstracts, and meeting presentations. Paula, a young assistant professor, and two graduate students have been working on a series of related experiments for the past several years. For example, they may believe that they have to do substandard work to compile a long list of publications and that this practice is Some researchers may feel that the pressures on them are an inducement to haste at the expense of care. If scientists cut corners for whatever reason, they are placing their reputation, the work of their colleagues, and the public's confidence in science at risk. Haste, carelessness, inattention-any of a number of faults can lead to work that does not meet the standards demanded in science. Mistakes made through negligent work are treated more harshly. Scientists who make such acknowledgments promptly and openly are rarely condemned by colleagues. When such errors are discovered, they should be acknowledged, preferably in the same journal in which the mistaken information was published. Even the most responsible scientist can make an honest mistake. Scientists do not have limitless working time or access to unlimited resources. In that sense all scientific results must be treated as susceptible to error.Įrrors arising from human fallibility also occur in science. Scientists can never prove conclusively that they have described some aspect of the natural or physical world with complete accuracy. Scientific results are inherently provisional. A LVIN W EINBERG, "The Obligations of Citizenship in the Republic of Science," Minerva, 16:1-3, 1978 A scientist can be brilliant, imaginative, clever with his hands, profound, broad, narrow-but he is not much as a scientist unless he is responsible. Of all the traits which qualify a scientist for citizenship in the republic of science, I would put a sense of responsibility as a scientist at the very top.
0 kommentar(er)
