Scientific misconduct and science ethics: a case study based approach

Abstract

The Schön misconduct case has been widely publicized in the media and has sparked intense discussions within and outside the scientific community about general issues of science ethics. This paper analyses the Report of the official Committee charged with the investigation in order to show that what at first seems to be a quite uncontroversial case, turns out to be an accumulation of many interesting and non-trivial questions (of both ethical and philosophical interest). In particular, the paper intends to show that daily scientific practices are structurally permeated by chronic problems; this has serious consequences for how practicing scientists assess their work in general, and scientific misconduct in particular. A philosophical approach is proposed that sees scientific method and scientific ethics as inextricably interwoven. Furthermore, the paper intends to show that the definition of co-authorship that the members of the Committee use, although perhaps clear in theory, proves highly problematic in practice and raises more questions that it answers. A final plea is made for a more self-reflecting attitude of scientists as far as the moral and methodological profile of science is concerned as a key element for improving not only their scientific achievements, but also their assessment of problematic cases.

The intertwining of ethics and methodology in science and engineering: a virtue-ethical approach

“…Jan-Hendrik Schön, a young promising physicist working in the field of organic semiconductors, was shown to have fabricated and falsified data in a number of scientific papers published in top scientific journals (see Consoli 2006,). (In an ironic twist for a world in which 'publish or perish' is the accepted norm, the first suspicions were aroused by what was deemed an excessive number of publications in top journals.)…”

“…In particular, I will concentrate on the problem of misconduct. Misconduct in science is a topic that has received much public and scholarly attention, especially in recent years (see Consoli 2006, Drenth 1999, Lafollette 1992. The surge of interest in misconduct has been caused in part by some very public and extreme cases of falsification and fabrication in various disciplines.…”

Academic misconduct in teaching portfolios

“…For example, if methodological discussions were appropriate when reporting teaching accomplishments, we would be able to define and discuss fraudulent behavior in portfolio writing more incisively. Steneck (2006), as well as Consoli (2006), argued that a discussion of academic misconduct is dependent on having professional standards that define proper and improper behavior. However, in our opinion, in portfolio writing such standards are weak or even undefined.…”

A Quantitative Perspective on Ethics in Large Team Science

“…By the mid 20th century, Oppenheimer became the tragic figurehead of the Manhattan project, which epitomizes the dilemma associated with the moral responsibility of individual scientists embedded in larger socio-political programs. With increasing numbers of large projects faced with ethical dilemmas, and with many of these projects having multiple figureheads and a hierarchical structure that tends to cloud the channels of responsibility [49], paradoxically moral responsibility has been shifting towards the scientific commons.…”