Introduction
Scientists and researchers generally work independently without being routinely supervised by others. Even if there is supervision, it is more in the form of supervision, evaluation, or monitoring of funders or mentors (if the students are researchers) to monitor the extent to which research progress has been achieved. The rest, researchers generally take full responsibility for results of the research done. Practices like this require researchers to have an honest and careful attitude, even though they are not routinely supervised.
Research produced with false or falsified data, besides having no meaning to the nature of its discovery, also has a negative impact on the development of science. Especially if the results of research with fake data are then referred by other researchers and used as a reference. Undoubtedly the series of falsehoods will become longer and have an increasingly bad impact. Therefore, scientists and researchers must uphold research ethics which are generally universal. In various professional associations or research institutions, research ethics are usually formalized in the form of codes of conduct which have direct consequences if violated by its members. With the diversity of professional organizations and research fields that exist, the editorial of the interagency research code of ethics may also vary. However, there are similarities in general ethics that apply to the scientific community. The explanation in this paper contains a substantial discussion of the ethics of scientists synthesized from various sources.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Ethics and morals
Before discussing research ethics further, we need to have the same perception of the nature of ethics. This is necessary because general public has a diverse understanding of ethics, and often this term is used interchangeably or together with “moral” or “morality”. Is “ethics” really synonymous with “moral” or “morality”? Is “ethics” the same as “good and right deeds”?
In everyday language, the difference between the terms “ethics” and “moral” or “morality” is not always clear. Even in some philosophical texts both are used as synonyms, while in other texts it is clear the difference between them. Historically, the term ‘ethics’ came from the Greek word “ethos” which means the habits or customs of society. While the term ‘morality’ comes from Latin “mos” (plural = “mores”) which means, more or less, same as ethos. The term “morality” was introduced by Cicero whose meaning is equivalent to “ethos” in Greek [1]. Thus, etymologically the word “ethics” has the same meaning as “moral”.
To further clarify the understanding of ethics and morals, we assume the standard definition of morality is the value, habits or customs of the community in the form of what must be done (obligation) and cannot be done (prohibition), which is widely accepted as a reference community association and no longer questionable rationality. On the other hand, ethics is a philosophical reflection on these rules in society. In other words, ethics is a reflection of community morality so that in the context of philosophy “ethics” is also referred to as “moral philosophy”. As a field of study, ethics is one of the disciplines in philosophy, including in sub-disciplines “moral philosophy”. This is what is meant by “ethics” as in Aristotle’s conception [1].
In the sense above, it can be concluded that “moral” is actually the basic value of “ethics”, not vice versa. At the operational level, ethics is often used in the form of a code of ethics that contains formal rules that are a reference for members of an organization. Meanwhile, the term “morality” is more often used in the context of behavior, lifestyle, beliefs, values, or individual personalities in community relations.
Practically ethics is related to two things. First, ethics refers to universal right and wrong standards which usually contain what must be done with regard to rights, obligations, benefits for society, justice, or certain virtues. Ethical standards also instruct us to apply virtue, honesty, compassion, and loyalty. Ethical standards are also related to human rights, such as the right to life, the right to be free from injury, and the right to privacy, etc. These standards are ethical standards because they are supported by consistent reasons. Second, ethics refers to the study and development of one’s etchical standards because feelings, laws, and social norms can deviate from what is ethical. The community needs to examine the standards adopted by its members to ensure that these standards make sense. Thus ethics also means a continuous effort to study our beliefs and moral behavior, and efforts to ensure that our institutions have reasonable and strong standards [2].
The following explanation also needs to be observed so that we obtain a broader orientation in understanding the ethical meanings that are often interpreted differently. First, many people tend to equate ethics with their feelings. In fact, ethics does not always suit someone’s feelings because feelings often deviate from what is ethical. Second, ethics cannot always be identified with the values that exist in a religion. Most religions have high ethical standards. But if ethics are identical with the values that exist in a religion, ethics will only apply to religious people. In fact, ethics applies to all circles, both atheist and religious. Religion can set high ethical standards and can provide strong motivation for followers to behave ethically. Ethics is not limited to religion and is not the same as religion. Third, being ethical is not always the same as obeying the law even though the law often combines several ethical standards that are complied with by most citizens. However, like feelings, the law can also deviate from what ethical is. Laws in the era of slavery and apartheid law in the past are examples of laws that deviate from ethical values. Fourth, being ethical is not always the same as doing what is accepted by the community. In every society, most people accept ethical standards. But standards of behavior in society can deviate from ethics. Most people can become corrupt. Nazi Germany is an example of a morally corrupt society. In addition, if being ethical is equated with “what is received by society” then to find out what is ethical, one must find out what is accepted by society. In fact, there are no or rarely community members who try to decide on ethical issues by conducting surveys [2].
Ethics in the research context
Some practices in research support the occurence of good ethics with an independent nature, for instance, recording honest and accurate data, openness, and appreciation to the owner of the original idea of a publication. These practices are also supported by a culture of critical review by the work of a scientist by his peer group who keeps most scientists within the limits of professional ethical behavior. However, due to the pressure to get credit as the first to publish ideas or observations, sometimes it causes some scientists to hold back information or even falsify their findings. Such violations are very contrary to scientific ethics and can hinder the development of science. When such behavior is discovered and known, the offender will be strongly condemned by the scientific community and the institutions that fund the research.
Another domain of scientific ethics is related to the possibility of danger due to the results of scientific experiments, particularly if the experimental subject is a living thing. Modern scientific ethics requires researchers to pay attention to the health, comfort, and condition of animals that are the subjects of their experiments. Moreover, if the subject of research is human.
Research involving human subjects can only be done with the consent of the subject, although this constraint can limit some types of research that are very important or have a major influence on human well-being. Volunteers of research subjects must be fully informed and open about the various risks and benefits of research. In this case the volunteer has the full right to refuse to participate. In addition, scientists must prevent the occurrence of health hazards or other hazards to colleagues, students, the environment, or the community. Scientists are also obliged to keep the identity of volunteers of research subjects confidential when reporting on their research data can harm their research subjects, both material and moral losses. In this realm, doctors are not allowed to disclose the secret of their patients’ illness without the consent of the patient [3].
Science ethics also relates to harmful effects that may arise from the results of a study. The long-term effects of the results of science may be unexpected, but what results are expected from a scientific work can be estimated by knowing who sponsors the research. For instance, a military institution offers contracts to scientists to work in the field of theoretical mathematics, the mathematician can conclude that he will develop new applications for military technology and therefore is likely to be subject to acts of secrecy. Military or industrial secrecy is acceptable for some scientists but may be not for others. Whether a scientist chooses to work on research that has a high risk for humanity, such as nuclear or biological weapons, is considered by many scientists to be a matter of personal ethics, not one of professional ethics [3]. Surely, this can be a matter of long debate.
Sample case
The illustrations presented below provide an overview of one of the dynamics of research ethics in the academic community on college. A medical school student in England gets the assignment from his supervisor, Dr. Z, to write a literature review. The plan is results of this task will be used by the lecturer for the main manuscript paper to be written with the student. The student will get credit as the paper’s first author, while Dr. Z has made a research protocol, collected data, and compiled the results. It turned out that this was a concern for his senior colleagues for several reasons. First, Dr. Z is considered too naïve because giving “gift” in the form of first authorship to student assigned to write a literature review. This is not justified in the scientific community because of only by writing a literature review the student does not deserve the right as the first author because the protocol, data collection, and data analysis carried out by Dr. Z [4].
The next case has the same nuance with a slightly different problem. In one of the seminars at Dartmouth College, Prof. R experienced a situation similar to that of Dr. Z. In his case, Prof. R knows that writing “gift” without significant research contributions is an unacceptable practice. However, he felt he had reason to give authorship to students who had worked for several years in his project but did not produce data that was worthy of publication. Believing that he has an obligation so that students can have publications, Prof. R has given his students some data that he has from other projects for his scientific material. Prof. R assessed that his students had worked hard, even though for other projects, so he reasoned that writing was not a “gift” [4].
The two illustrations above show that good intentions do not always produce ethical decisions. The two lecturers in the illustration above are “good” people. In both cases, the two lecturers truly believed that what they did was morally acceptable. In the first case, Dr. Z does not understand the scientific ethics that he should. In the second case, Prof. R did what he thought was best for his students without considering that morality was a public system. His actions relating to these students even though they are individual have public consequences as professional scientists [4].
References
- S. Gammel, Ethics and Morality, in The Ethics Portfolio – Technical University Darmstadt for NanoCap.
- C. Andre, M. Velasquez, What is Ethics, Issues in Ethics, vol. 1, no. 1, p. IIE, fall 1987.
- S.G. Korenman, Teaching the Responsible Conduct of Research In Humans (RCRH), Office of Research Integrity, 2006.
- J.E. Stern, D. Elliot, The Ethics of Scientific Research: A Guidebook for Course Development, University Press of New England, 1997.
Stuck on your essay?
