Don't Forget About the Little Ethical Lapses: BLOG: SciAm Observations

This SciAm piece was very compelling:

Don't Forget About the Little Ethical Lapses: BLOG: SciAm Observations:

"Do the small but daily compromises do as much damage to science, cumulatively, as the high-profile cases do? It seems entirely plausible. Precisely because these lapses are small, they seldom affect the final results, so they scoot right by science's self-corrective mechanisms. But that doesn't mean they don't distort science. "

And in the case of science in academia, ethical lapses of all sizes and forms distort the experience and education of the next generation of scientists. This is especially dangerous when no ethics training is provided. If the culture at an institution allows for some rules to be ignored consistently and without punishment - like those prohibiting animal cruelty - then the larger message is that rules don't count. Is it any surprise that technicians at UNC were willing to cut the heads off of unanesthetized mice, even though they acknowledged that it was illegal?

Furthermore, the sense of right and wrong that many students and young scientists bring with them can be tainted in a scientific environment where nondisclosure and disdain for ethical standards are the norm. To the extent that their standards of integrity make them stand out, seem different, or not fit in, the rule-bending culture that plagues some institutions also discourages some bright minds and stymies careers of promising, ethical scientists.

Can we afford to satisfy our curiousity at any cost, even if it is cruelty? Does academic freedom outweigh our obligations to uphold the highest ethical standards in research? That's what some seem to be saying.

In their reticence to respond, the scientific community - universities, professional associations, journals and publishers - a relatively small group of scientists who ignore ethical standards outright are causing the public and the government to lose confidence in the very process of science. Transparency was one of the keystones for the long-held justification for self-policing that science has enjoyed for so long. Lies, cover-ups, collusions and the "blind eyes" of colleagues have eroded this privilege.

The intermediate and smaller lapses simply go unnoticed - but at what cost?

Amid the fury of controversy in recent misconduct cases, many claim scientists will solve the problem of scientific misconduct. Apparently, editors at Scientific American do not agree. Neither do I. When your grants, publications, or ACUC / IRB protocols depend on the cooperation of colleagues and competitors who will review them, how many are willing to blow the whistle, talk about what is questionable or patently wrong or stand up for what is right?

Peer-review isn't a silver bullet; other changes are desperately needed, too. Enron style prosecutions may be the kick in the pants that science needs to get serious about ethical training and obligations.