Scientific Integrity Text and Cases in Responsible Conduct Of Research THIRD EDITION Francis L. Macrina Edward Myers Professor and Director The John F. Philips Institute of Oral and Craniofacial Molecular Biology Virginia Commonwealth University Richmond, Virginia
chapter 2 Ethics and the Scientist Bruce A. Fuchs and Francis L. Macrina Overview . Ethics and the Scientist · Underlying Philosophical Issues · Utilitarianism · Deontology · Critical Thinking and the Case Study Approach . Moral Reasoning in the Conduct of Science . Conclusion · Discussion Questions · Case Studies · References · Resources Overview M ANY OF THE DECISIONS THAT SCIENTISTS MAKE in their day-to-day activities are pragmatic ones. Scientists make observations, study facts, and then interpret them on the basis of established knowledge and accepted principles. For example, when planning a surgical procedure in- volving a rabbit, one must decide on the type and dose of anesthetic to be used. This decision is determined by professional judgment, published recommendations, and consultation with the appropriate animal experts. It is also strongly influenced by the formal rules and policies that govern the use of animals in research. On the other hand, the decision to use a rabbit in the first place has both pragmatic and moral components. Most scientists conduct a particular medical experiment on animals because the risk to humans is unacceptably high. Although some members of our society question whether this decision is an ethical one, the majority accept the necessity of animal research but insist that it be conducted in a humane manner. Here we have entered the realm of moral reasoning. These deci- sions are based on our judgment of what we ought to do-and we want to do the right thing. But determining what is morally (as opposed to legally) right and wrong in such cases is not always assisted by guidelines or a pol- icy manual. There are a number of past research studies that, while con- ducted in accordance with acceptable practices at the time, are widely viewed today as having been unethical. To avoid repeating such errors, we must all strive to carefully examine the moral dimensions of our current research practices. 19
Today, we commonly encounter codes and policies that guide scientists in decision making. Institutional standards of conduct, codes of ethical behavior adopted by scientific societies, and instructions to authors published in scholarly journals are but a few examples of the kinds of written guidance available to scientists. On the other hand, there are many examples of decision making in science that are not underpinned by clear-cut accepted standards. For example, which of our data do we publish? In this connection a National Academy of Sciences panel report (6) asserts that "the selective use of research data is another area where the boundary between fabrication and creative insight may not be obvious." With whom and under what circumstances do we share our research data? When is it acceptable not to share research data? Guidelines and policies about sharing publication-related data are becoming increasingly