This article was downloaded by: [The University Of Melbourne Libraries]On: 10 May 2013, At: 07:42Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Drying Technology: An International JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ldrt20

Some Perils to Ethical Creative Scientific Research inThe AcademiaAshok K. Vijh aa F.R.S.C.Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Québec 1800 bout. Lionel Boulet, Varennes, Qc, J3X1S1, CanadaPublished online: 07 May 2007.

To cite this article: Ashok K. Vijh (1996): Some Perils to Ethical Creative Scientific Research in The Academia, DryingTechnology: An International Journal, 14:6, 1477-1485

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07373939608917157

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.

DRYING TECHNOLOGY. 14(6). 1477-1485 (1996)

SOME PERILS TO ETHICAL CREATIVE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN THE ACADEMIA

Ashok K. V i h , F.R.S.C. Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec

1800 bout. Lionel Boulet Varennes, Qc, C a n a d a J3X IS1

Key Words: Ethics in research: grantsmanship; research by proxy; academic overload; dichotomies of creative scientists; misconduct in research; deviant scholarly behaviour; academic role models; fund-chasing in research; sociol factors in science: conflict of intercst in science.

ABSTRACT

Modem research in natural sciences has become a large and complex enterprise involving substantial research funds, enormous infrastmchms, tcam work and group dynamics. It is also characterized by a dazzling inter-play of egos. competition, fund- chasing, fame-seeking and other social (rather than scientific) factors. Since a great deal of scientific research is carried out in universities, it is of interest to enquire as to how these social factors influence the ethical conduct of creative scientific research in the academia.

This paper approaches this problem from the point of view of the observations of a pro- fessional scientist, i.e.. an "insider's view" of some of these ethical dangen to scientific research in universities. Some of the factors pushing scientific ethics over the edge in the academe are identified as: grantsmanship; research by proxy; poor role models; academic cloning; companmentalization; academic overload; psychological dichotomies: miscon-

[Note: Dr. Ashok Vijh is the Pnsident of the "Scicnce and Ethics" Committee of the Royal Society of Canada.]

Copyright (D 1996 by M m l Dekkcr. Lnc.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

7:42

10

May

201

3

duct and deviant scholarly behaviour; and, finally, the seduction by fashionable rather than fascinating science. Some guidelines for the conduct of ethical creative research we also proposed.

Modem research in namml science is a demanding profession pursued by an intellectual elite with various levels of enthusiasm; it not only enriches our society cul- turally through new ideas and facts regarding the mysteries bf the universe but also provides the viral s ~ d s for new technology and economic advancement.

Traditionally, the most fenile environment for pursuing science has been provided by the universities presumably because: (i) their professed goal is the pursuit of the curiosity-generated research (although this is being tarnished now by the restrictive requirements of some granting agencies); (ii) universities provide complete academic freedom through the tenure system (although this f d o m is marred at times by the ease with which academics are manioulated with various awards. honoraria. societal and Deer recognition); (iii) there is a constant stream of bright, young, curious minds adding to the dynamic pool of talent bearing on a research problem (this is no longer altogether true in view of the fact that societal rewards seduce p a t many of the bed brainsto other pro- fessions). Despite the fact that universities still provide a most exciting arena of really creative research, some perils have been observed to arise which spell future trouble in this paradise. The object of the present paper is to review some of these danger signals to e!hical research in the academia (1-5) so that a fuller profile of these perils emerges.

GRANTSMANSHIP

Universities tend to judge professors these days by the level of their input, i.e.. gmnts, conuacts, number of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. industrial consultancies, etc. N0,attention is paid to the really-imponant factor, namely, the output. This is clearly seen in the promotions and tenure policies - an eminent elccvochcmist teaching in a prestigious US. university told us recently that this situation occurs because ".. . the Deans and the Chairmen Lie that son of thing...". Also, going through the ads for academic positions reveals that most of the universities are looking for some- one with a healthy track record of obtaining grants rather than sterling research creden- tials. It is not implied at all here that the two cannot go hand in hand - in fact, they do indeed go together if one is thinking of truly creative scientists. However, for every truly creative scientist, one can n a m dorcns of professors (especially in the Engineering or Clinical Research Depanments) with lots of students and grants but pcdesvian produc- tivity; and these are the people who wield undue clout with the university authorities, to the detriment of career advancement of really bright people with meagre budgets and lean "teams" but producing highly original science. The fundamental ethical question here is this: should universities encourage professors to run "minisorporations" that act as funnels for large grants and research contracts on "relevant" topics but producing little original work, or, should they continue to be the temples of really creative research by intense and gifted people who may not be the magnets for large funds on inane problems? (I. 2).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

7:42

10

May

201

3

ETHICAL CREATIVE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH 1479

RESEARCH BY PROXY

The focus on mantsmanship can at times give rise to another evil, namely. research by proxy. This occurs in iarge reams nomiklly headed by an absentee super- visor (also called head of the laboratory or principal investigator). As the "grant owner". this person appropriates the work of the "serfs" .&d puts his name on it without adding any detectable intellectual effon, ideas, interpretation or analysis (2). The place of inspiring research leaders has been taken over, in some large university laborarorics, by "grant-lords" (by analogy with land-lords) with entrepreneurial zeal but questionable ethics.

ROLE MODELS

There was a time when all university deans and presidents used to be cxccptionally outstanding scholars - natural role models for professors and students alike. With the emphasis on "funding" and "management", some (though not many, thank God!) now tend to be "nice guys", more acceptable as role models perhaps to parolc boards than to the intellectual stars that should populate our universities.

Unfortunately, the job of a university administrator these days has been reduced to the role of: (i) collection and management of funds. (ii) public relations - he is the smiling type who, after a first casual meeting, remembers the name of your mother-in- law's dog. (iii) a nice guy giving the same service to disgruntled profcsson as a fire- - - . . . hydrant provides to male dogs - a focal point on which to "pour themselves out", (iv) a bailiff whose chief task is to enforce decreed budeet cuts and staff reductions (2). These - . , "managers" are not shy of compromising scholarly goals if it suits their budgemy constraints.

ACADEMIC CLONING

lnbrccding in committees that award grants, prizes, fellowships, and faculty posi- tion etc. is quile common. Of course, it is vehemently denied that the situation is in fact incest or clonina. The practice is eiven more d a t a b l e desienations. such as - - - "perperuatmg pure-he excellence". or "rna~nlam~ng intellectual pcd~gm". or "conunuat~on of uncompmmised h~gh rtanduds" (2)

A more serious form of cloning occurs when a professor docs not allow his or her graduate students intellectual freedom to explore and grow, but insists that the student toc the line and thus become a carbon copy of the professor.

COMPARTMENTALIZATION

In one sense, the manner in which the research is conducted in the universities is rather obsolete. This is because one investigates problems in the universities in the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

7:42

10

May

201

3

Department of Chemistry or Physics or Electrical Engineering, etc. However, the Nature presents us with an unsolved problem and this problem for its proper understanding. needs the focus of thought-modes that flow across disciplines with the ease with which one breathes. Such an intellectual span can only be acquired by working in laboratories with multi-disciplinary teams that interact, i.e., where the individuals impan to each other the viewvoints, the lanrmane and the enthusiasm of various traditional disciplines. ~om~artmentaiization not oniy c k i p a t e s creativity in science but also leads to b;ilding of water-tight empires with the consequent academic jealousies and unethical behaviour.

ACADEMIC OVERLOAD

When d o academics do research?

This is not a rhetorical question. I have often wondered about it. With the under- graduate and graduate teaching, committees and other academic duties, finding students, funds, and, jobs for students, indulging in academic skullduggery (oh yes! this is, without a doubt, the most favorite sport of these intellectual gladiators), consulting, etc.. when do they find time and energy for intense research and reflection. In summers? Try to get an academic on the phone in summer! In short, although, it would appear that the university routine and demands can be emasculating I am pleasantly puzzled at the intellectual virility and productivity of many (nor all!) university scientists. I would like very much someone to elaborate on this mystery ( I ) . Could this be the reason for resorting to research by proxy?

PSYCHOLOGICAL DICHOTOMIES OF SCIENTISTS

Considering that scientists constitute a pivotal group of creative professionals whose work clears the ground for new technology and economic growth, it is puzzling that psychologists have failed to study them extensively. Scientists can be as irrational, opinionated, and closed-minded as the general population. In discussions of the behavior vatterns of scientists, it has never been broupJlt out that they are subiected to several conflicts, engendered by their training and professional practice, that tend to create deep psychological stresses with profound ramifications. Some of these unresolved conuadic-

i) Facts vs. intuition

Scientists must, according to the rules of the game, base their theories and opinions on facts, whereas true creative effort often requires that one ignore the "facts" and follow intuition. P.A.M. Dirac pointed out that the most important discoveries in theoretical physics in this century were made when many of the most creative scientists felt that it was "more important to have beauty in one's equations than to have them fit the experiment". This maddening contradiction led even such luminaries as Newton. Galileo, and Mendel to doctor parts of their data.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

7:42

10

May

201

3

ETHICAL CREATIVE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH 1481

ii) Anti-authoritarianism vs. recognition

Scientists, by temperament, reject authoritarianism in science, yet they crave approval by authorities, i.e.. peer recognition.

iii) Originality vs. scholarship

A mastery of facts and theory by a scientist is supposed to increase the ability to attack a research oroblem: however, it also tends to diminish originality. because the scientist is thbroughly influenced by the prevalent prejudic&s of his or her discipline. Although rigorous and intensive training is essential for conducting significant research in a panicular field, this training is acquired only at the expense of flexibility of thought.

iv) Aspirations vs. achievement

The lofty aspirations of most scientists when contrasted with the reality of their modest achievements create unbearable osvcholoeical strain. To aooreciate this . . . . point, one must note that the majority of the initially-trained physical scientists publish no more than one paper during their lifetime.

v) Intellectual vs. social skills

Scientists spend most of their time and energy developing ideas and experimental techniques. They are ill prepared to display the necessary social skills of real life as members of scientific organizations and within their own families, as well as on a professional level within a research team. Today most scientists work in groups. Thus, on the one hand, they are expected to be good team players, but on the other hand they are judged on individual achievement.

vi) Rationality vs. human emotions

Scientists are suooosed to be cool. rational veoole euided bv loeic and reasonine. However, in reaiity, their behavior is as much &;ded by .inn& fears, irrational oerceotions. eeo. and oreiudice as that of others. For scientists. the emotions . . contrast sharpyy with 'thiir professional ideal of objectivity. This provokes profound anxiety that can lead them to defend positions that are obviously opinionated, if not completely irrational.

In addition to these unresolved contradictions, scientists are victims of many other deeper nightmares. Most scientists live in perpetual fear that they won't have another original idea in their life. Dirac, for example, who received a Nobel Prize at the age of 31, versified this terror (3):

Age is, of course, a fever chill, rhat every physclst must fear. Hc's beltcr dead than living suli. when once he's p*t his thirtieth year.

Plagued by the anxiety of "drying up", scientists can be extremely insecure, defensive, and opinionated - this can sometimes lead to behaviour bordering on the unethical.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

7:42

10

May

201

3

MISCONDUCT AND DEVIANT BEHAVIOUR

The spectrum of misconduct and deviant behaviour in scientific research is very large and involves a number of ethical issues (4). Although the problem is far from wide- - . . - spread. it has been a subject of some concern to the scientific community and, more recently, to public at-large, e.g.. the recent congressional hearings into some cases of scientific misconduct in the U.S.A.

It is essential to point out that this oanicular peril to scientific research. as indeed some of other foregoing perils, is not limited to research in the universities but can also be found, m r h a ~ s more so. in non-university research. The subiect is vast and comolex (5) and can be iouched upon only synoptically here. This perifcan take several f < m . some of which are as follows:

i) Fraud

Deliberate fraud in the collection and manipulation of data or complete fabrica- tion of results, as in several recent repons especially in the biomedical literature in the US. (4). Perhaps the most damaging example is that of the English psychologist. Sir Cyril Bun who fabricated data to suppon his theory that human intelligence is 75 percent inherited.

ii) Plagiarism

This involves "presenting as one's own an idea or product derived from an existing source", without, of course, attributing the credit to the source as the origin of such idea or product. One of the meanest examples of this deviant behaviour in science was Johann Bernouilli (mathematician who refined calculus) who in 1738 plagiarized his son's discovery of the "Bernoulli equation" by backdating his own book so that it appeared to have been issued before his

iii) Blatant Conflict of lnterect

A recent example is that of researchers at Harvard University who were accused of holding up negative results about an eye medication that was to be sold by a company in which they had a financial interest (4).

Another case is that of the Environmental Rotection Aeencv E P A ) in the - . . . U S A . whose Scientific Advisory Panel, a pesticide review board, had eight members out of which seven were consultants for the "chemical indusuv": the review hoard was thus riddled with pro-industry bias (4).

iv) Research Sophistry

This arises, for example, when deceptively subtle argument, reasoning or data are used as masks for promoting racism, sexism, superstition, occult, etc. Here. intellectual claptrap is promoted under the smoke-screen of legitimate scholar- ship. So-called "scientific" defence of "creationism" would fall under this heading. Another example would be parapsychology.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

7:42

10

May

201

3

ETHICAL CREATIVE SClENTlFlC RESEARCH 1483

v j Unfalr Conduct

This type of unethical behaviour can take several forms. An example would be a oerson who sits on a man1 oroeosal or a oawr. etc.. received for review. in order Lo gain time on a r i v z ~ h ; n one stacks H committee with cronies rather than the most competent people, the cause of science is ill-served. Sir Isaac Newton. the most celebrated ;cientist for nearly three hundred years, was ruthlessly mean and underhanded in this respect. Newton displayed monumental hypocrisy with which he paid lip serviceto fair procedure-but followed the opposite co&e, in his priority fight with Leibniz over the invention of calculus (4). Newton had set- uo a dummv committee of The Roval Societv of London which rubber-stamoed as i u own a repon written by Newton himell: this repon. which denied Leibniz any credit for the calculus. was ostensibly the work of a committee of imomial sc;entist. Newton was also known to be unparalleled in his skills to fudge data to fit his theories (4).

These examples of misconduct in science, serious as they are, are not as catastrophic as might appear at first sight. This is because scientific claims are rigorously checked by peer scrutiny and the replication of experiments: any errors that squeeze by this scrutiny are ultimately discovered, sooner or later. In the meantime, they do cause some damage lo the cause of science and, especially, to those who use the results of science, for example, in various applied areas. e.g.. medicine, engineering, education, agriculture. etc. (4. 5).

FASHIONABLE RATHER THAN FASCINATING SCIENCE

In this peril to scientific research, there is a tendency to stampede to fashionable areas and problems. especially those having an appeal lo the popular media, c.g.. cold fusion. Here. the intrinsic fascination with a oroblem which is the basis of all creative research, is abandoned as the main criterion, in favour of gimmicky activities that attract funds and show-business type of interest, and, can involve self-promotion tactics that can go beyond the ethical l imik

The bandwagon effect observed in recent years in pursuit of bioachnology, m i c r o electronics, solar heating. "hot" superconductivity or "cold" fusion by people with no background, or interest or original ideas on these problem has not produced, not surpris- ingly, the expected spectacular results. Solid, original research, fuelled by imagination and curiositv of men and women is bound to yield dividends in the lone. run. Flimsv flir- tations with-fashionable problems that change by the day cannot form ;he basis of inajor advances in science but can ponray scientists as peddlers of snake oil.

In conclusion. the enterprise of creative scientific research in academia and else- where is vulnerable to many ethical perils. It is essential, therefore, to recognise there perils and to investigate their mt causes. Most importantly, it is necessary to devise norms and strategies that safeguard scientific research from these perils.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

7:42

10

May

201

3

SOME GUIDELINES TO ETHICAL CREATIVE RESEARCH

Given the magnitude and diversity of perils to creative work in the academe, it would be PresumpNaUs on our pan to prescribe some facile solutions to these complex problems. However, the imponance and the urgency of this issue prompt us to attempt, however imperfectly and tentatively, some guidelines to minimize the impact of these . perceived or real perils, as follows:

(1) Sensitization

The first step to solve a problem is to recognize that a problem exists. It is imperative. therefore, that the beginning students, research scholars and the faculty is exposed to the nature of this problem and the many subtle (and less subtle) ways in which this problem can manifest itself. This can be done by means of leclures, seminars and shon courses on the subject followed by focussed discussions. This can be funher reinforced by requiring graduate students to write a term-paper on some aspect of the vast spectrum of problems that collectively constitute misconduct in research. This exercise can be strengthened by making available some suitable reading material on the subject.

(2) Code of Ethics

Many Universities and the various research councils in Canada (e.g.. National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada; the Medical Research Council of Canada) and elsewhere have a "Code of Ethics" either already in vigour or in preparation. The formulation, dissemination and implementation of this code of ethics should be given a top priority in various institutions; more importantly, resources should be made available for a proper implementation of such a code.

In the U.S.A.. remarkable leadership has been shown in this area by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering. the Instimte of Medicine, the National Institutes of Health and many other scientific and academic bodies.

(3) Reflection on Individual Behanour

It is imponant for each of us not only to acquire some knowledge on this problem (as in the ( I ) and (2) above) but also to undertake a self-evaluation in the light of this knowledge. One must ask questions such as:

Am I motivated by interesting and exciting research or by empire building? Have 1 made an intellectual contribution to the research project and publication I am involved in? In the work on important academic committees, am 1 really upholding objective and high scholarly standards or am I just yielding to my biases?

On these lines, one can easily think of many more questions pe7inenl to such a self-examination.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

7:42

10

May

201

3

ETHICAL CREATIVE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH I485

(4) Structural Changes

It is imperative that Universities undertake some structural changes in their values and criteria in order to make their students and faculty less vulnerable to these perils. Let us stop, for example, fund-chasing for its own sake. Discourage companmentalization and too narrow a scholarship. Avoid academic cloning and encourage novelty, creativity, originality and independence of thought and action in students. Do not promote poor role mod& to leadership positions. Deal with misconduct in scholarship and research in no uncertain terms. Emphasize and encourage fascinating cuttingsdge science rather than some fashionable fads aimed at attracting large contracts. Highlight (e.8.. in the University newsletters. etc.) the profile of professors who represent the style and subslance of r e m h of the highest originality and integrity. These are only some illustralive examples and I feel sure that many more ideas on these lines can arise from discussions on this topic.

In conclusion, one must recognize first the ethical perils to creative research. Subsequently, a wcll-researched intellectual analysis of the vast range of problems involved can lead lo a number of ideas to correct these problems. An "Action Plan" based on these ideas can then be formulated and, given the will and resources, an imple- mentation scheme can be put in place.

REFERENCES

I . A.K. Vijh. Reflections on Some Perils to Creative Scientific Research in the Academia. DIVERSA (The Royal Society of Canada Newsletter). Vol. Ill (No. 2). 43 (Fall 1987).

2. A.K. Vijh. Do We Want Pirates or Professors?". Canadian Research. 3 (#a). 4 (Aug. 1987).

3. A.K. Vijh. Dichotomies of Creative Scientists. Can. Chem. News. 21 (#2). 4 (1985).

4. A.K. Vijh, Deviant Behaviour in Science. Research and Scholarship. Phys. in Canada, 49. (#I), 25 (1993).

5 . W. Bmad and N. Wade. "Berroyrrs of rhc Tmrh". Simon and Schuster Inc.. New York (1982). D

ownl

oade

d by

[T

he U

nive

rsity

Of

Mel

bour

ne L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

42 1

0 M

ay 2

013