Ethics as It Relates to Scientific Communication, Essay Example

Introduction

The arenas of science have always presented something of a dilemma in terms of ethical considerations.  On one level, they are removed from them; science, certainly within the public perception, is a pursuit of knowledge with an implied ethical foundation based solely upon that pursuit.  Knowledge is an implement, and it is largely assumed that ethics come into play only after the scientific knowledge is acquired.  The argument ordinarily, and simply, runs as follows: “Science…is simply interested in describing nature, learning facts, and constructing hypotheses” (Reiser, Heitman, 1993, p. 878).  It is what humanity chooses to do with it, in any manner, that requires such investigation, or at least scrutiny.

What this convenient view ignores, however, are all the very human mechanisms at play when science of any kind is the realm of activity.  That scientists are human beings, and consequently prone to mistakes in ethical judgment, or less accidental lapses in conduct, is inescapable fact.  Moreover, other issues actually emerge from the supposedly removed efforts themselves.  For one thing, science rarely goes about its business blindly, and there are typically goals regarding at least information which are sought because they will be of great value.  For another, this worth of scientific achievement, and one  frequently attached to virtually every field of scientific endeavor, tends to breed a competitive element within scientists.  As it happens, then, science is as rife with potentials for ethical abuses, deliberate and otherwise, as any commercial venture humanity knows.

There is, as noted, a difference, however: what science produces may likely have far wider-reaching consequences than anything obtained in any other field.  This degree of value then demands a rigid adherence to ethics, which in turn may only be effective when communicated as an influential factor, or force.  It is somewhat ironic, but science, due to its unvarying potential for vast impact, must be inextricably linked to integrity, and this can only occur through a perpetual supervision, and open communication, of the ethics of each scientific circumstance.

Internal Considerations

Before any real understanding of the difficulties inherent of ethics in science may be sought, it is essential to first admit to the enormity of the field itself.  “Science” is an extraordinarily vast field, incorporating within it medicine, technology, anthropology, archeology, and every other discipline in which humanity has attempted to gain information.  There are understandable gradations of import attached to each, at least to the common mind, and it may appear that a greater adherence to ethics is more critical in the field of medicine than in, for instance, paleontology.

This, however, is a moot point at best.  While it is true that knowledge takes on greater import when its applications are more direct and tangibly influential in a society, the larger reality is that integrity is not a property which may justifiably vary.  It exists or it does not, and it is as crucial that it be evident in one field of science as in any other.  That is to say, a breach of ethics in one scientific discipline inherently opens the door for others.  Moreover, as humanity has had cause to learn, the scientific discovery first dismissed as relatively trivial may prove to have astounding impact on life itself, and mankind’s understanding of it.  Consequently, if the sciences cover a wide range, the ethical principles within them may not.

In the past, the ethical status of any scientific research was largely entrusted to the professional standing of the scientists concerned, with a code of ethical disciplines based upon it in effect as well.  There was little to no communicating of ethics because there was, essentially, nowhere for them to go.  Anyone designated as a scientist virtually was assigned a high ethical standing, it having been assumed that dedication to acquiring knowledge was the guiding motivation.  This is now rarely, if ever, the case; bureaucratic supervision today determines the ethics, and this has the unfortunate result of creating atmospheres of “institutionalized distrust” (Haggerty, 2004, p. 393).  Academic and scientific integrity, plainly, loses a great deal of ground when it is no longer deemed sufficient to safeguard ethical procedures.

The dilemma is well known to the world of science, and accepted because, quite frankly, there is no alternative.  No scientist is unaware that the acquiring of fundamental knowledge relies upon honesty from the scientists, which must be practiced with their peers and students (Reiser, Heitman, p. 876).  However, if the days when a scientist could conduct his or her work within a vacuum of objectivity ever existed, they are long gone.  Societies and cultures, in globally expanding, place exponential burdens on research, and the “arms race” once restricted to a few scientists seeking to be the first to identify a fossil is now an international, and crowded, competition.  Then, even the more modest scientific arenas of the past have never been free of hotly contested ethical disputes; who first isolated certain elements, and rightly earned a Nobel Prize, has been as rife with contention as the claim to have invented calculus fought between Isaac Newton and Gottfried Liebniz.  Increasingly, what science produces has great meaning for the world at large, and it is no novelty that acclaim and recognition are common aims of scientists.  Those who devote their lives to learning may be noble in aspiration, but they are as well human, and no manner of study is not vulnerable to less than ethical practices within it.

This human component has been confronted by those whose job it is to inculcate ethics within students of science.  Unfortunately, this is frequently a case of  “worlds colliding”, as instructors in science are somewhat out of their element in addressing these challenges.  Teachers of science are, at best, conflicted.  Many, according to recent studies, fully acknowledge the need to address controversies surrounding certain types of research, such as stem cell work, with the students.  However, there are wide variations in how and when these teachers feel their own ethical viewpoints should enter into such discussions.  While the teachers believe that ethics demands that both sides of a controversy be examined in these settings, they are ill equipped to conduct such exchanges  (Sadler, Amirshokoohi, Kazempour, & Allspaw, 2006, p. 357).  This is where communication in regard to ethics is both most pivotal and most liable to subjectivity; the ethical views of even the greatest scientist/teacher may not reflect real integrity, and students are intrinsically impressionable learners.

External Issues and Communication Oversight

Interestingly, it is arguable that the fading of the day of the “cloistered” scientist, happily at work and oblivious to the external world, is beneficial to improved scientific ethics, or at least to a better likelihood of a universal, fully communicated application of them.  As science itself is not removed from ethics, ethics may not be promoted as a distinct concept or presence.  It requires dissemination.  It must be communicated, for there to be any agreed-upon acceptance and understanding.

It is as well fortunate that a vast amount of scientific work occurs, as it traditionally has, within the confines of university settings.  Inherently bureaucratic by virtue of size, universities nonetheless evince a dedication to the ethical foundations of learning no outside bureaucracy could impart to science.  Schools exist as representations of what they achieve, and many are modeled on ethical, and not scholastic, aspirations; consequently, it is always in the school’s best interests to promote an integrity that can easily withstand external scrutiny.

Even so, measures must be taken to support, in form and procedure, ethical adherence within universities.  Canada has enacted its Tri-Council Policy, which translates to a legal mandate that all universities contain at least one Research Ethics Board (Haggerty, p. 395).  In the United States, many colleges and universities have similar, in-house structures, which address both research concerns and more general applications of ethics.  That these boards exist apart from the science actually being conducted is essential to their value; ethics requires some degree of distance, or objectivity, and in any arena.  As noted, it also demands transmission, and the simple fact of the distinctness of the two inherently establishes communication.

In regard to research itself, new concerns continually emerge, and from both society and within the scientific setting.  As the use of the findings of science creates fresh fields of controversy, as in the aforementioned example of stem cell work, so too must methods be questioned.  For example: “Research that might traumatize research participants can include questioning individuals…who have been victimized in any number of ways. The ethical concern is that such research might rekindle disturbing memories, producing a form of re-victimization” (Haggerty, p. 400).  The nature of science is intrinsically exploratory; consequently, the ethics attached to it must be perpetually in place to be applied to the new terrains being explored.

Conclusion

The ethics of science is as complex an issue as the field itself.  Science interacts with all spheres of life, as it is very much a vast array of living, multifaceted processes.  Each is then beholden to the life it serves:  “Science, as a human enterprise, is embedded in the culture from which it emanates. Therefore, it necessarily is affected by and re?ects the values and norms of a given society at a given time” (Sadler, et al., p. 354).  For these values to be comprehended, and for the society at large to be better acquainted with what the science pursues, communication is as crucial as an understood adherence to basic ethics.

Moreover, as values evolve and shift – frequently due to enlightenment brought about by science – only communication between the outside world and the disciplines, and within the disciplines themselves, can successfully maintain viable ethics.  This is what ethics and science share, in fact: each exists to reflect and improve upon the existing world, so each must act in concert with the other.  Ironically, science, that which uncovers and invents the new, must be inextricably linked to the less mutable, if nonetheless evolving, field of ethics.  This can only occur through an ongoing supervision, and open communication, of each scientific circumstance.

References

Haggerty, K. D. (2004.)  Ethics Creep: Governing Social Science Research in the Name of Ethics. Qualitative Sociology, Vol. 47, No. 4. pp. 391-413.

Reiser, J., and Heitman, E. (1993.) Creating a Course on Ethics in the Biological Sciences. Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, Vol. 68, No. 12.  pp. 876-879.

Sadler, T. D.,  Amirshokoohi, A., Kazempour, M., & Allspaw, K. M. (2006.)  Socioscience and Ethics in Science Classrooms: Teacher Perspectives and Strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 43, No. 4. pp, 353-576.