Social responsibility of scientists
Tags: honesty, plagiarism, Scientific communityPosted in Ethics
This post is not about building the atomic bomb or chemical weapons. It is about being sensitive to a basic and yet very important ethical issue in producing and publishing science: Honesty. Publishing in science is based upon trust. No review mechanism, no matter how sophisticated its design is, can overcome systematic fraud when it is practiced by a major part of the scientific community.
Honesty measures can be categorized to different levels based on the number of scientists who practice them. At the bottom of the dishonesty pyramid lies acts like plotting the data in the graph such that the agreement with the theory is exaggerated or underestimating the error-bars to beat the exactness record. One level higher in the pyramid could be keeping it silent when you find out that your already published results are not as correct as you have claimed, if no one else is pointing that out (Yes! I think this latter behavior is so common that is it ranked near the bottom of the pyramid).












Readers' comments
Thanks for the advice. It sounds almost too simple and like something people should come up by themselves. Unfortunately, most ...
19 Jul 2010 8:46, Julio E. Peironcely
Getting grants funded is a much less platonic enterprise than the science itself. I recently ran into a science professor ...
20 Jun 2010 19:32, Gijs
Hi, One question - where would you include correspondence? Some journals e.g. Nature publish "Letters" as full articles, whereas, correspondence elsewhere ...
11 Jun 2010 23:09, MH
I agree with what have been said above. Should the normalization be done against the total number of publications he/she authored/co-authored ...
8 Jun 2010 23:08, labuddy
I spent the spare time on the unfinished ideas,because the working time is controlled strictly by the boss and ...
7 Jun 2010 14:26, danxian