Sovacool Summary and Response In his article “Using criminalization and Due process to Reduce Scientific Misconduct” Published in The American Journal of Bioethics, Benjamin K. Sovacool, a researcher for the center of science and technology at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and state University, presents a solution for minimizing scientific misconduct. A problem he feels needs to be addressed due to the lack of a solution to reduce the increase of misconduct within the scientific community. He details that while there has been a lot of talk and analysis of the problem, the approaches have been “narrow and descriptive rather than comprehensive and prescriptive”. (Sovacool W1) Furthermore, Sovacool acknowledges that a simple solution is …show more content…
Questions that need to be addressed include, how and if this could be universally implemented in a day were a community of scientists spans the many different nations, cultures and languages? Or what impact would it have on not only deterring misconduct but the furthering of science through trial and error? At this point of the conversation I will endeavor to explore these and other questions regarding the practically and reality of implementing criminalization and due process to reduce scientific …show more content…
He begins by conceding that not all misinformation and error is occurs in science is not deliberative misconduct but the “The nature of scientific research makes a certain number of mistakes inevitable.” (W1) and also that scientific misconduct is also hard to catch. While bringing these points up complicates the simple solution that is presented just prior in his thesis it helps to build his credibility as it illustrates that he has thought about not only the benefits of his solution but also the potential objections and complications. After which he promptly refutes them by citing two prominent definitions of misconduct one from the Public Health Service and one from the National Science Foundation and Department of Health and Human Services. Assuring the reader that this difficulty has already been addressed by the community.
Furthermore, while both of these definitions are from prominent groups in the community they both rely on an established line of protocol and “accepted practices” (in Sovacool W2) in regards to the gathering and presenting of research. Which might be uniform for one field of research with in one country but what about other disciplines and other countries where the practices might vary. Scientific misconduct in one might be viewed as acceptable in another. Further definitions and distinctions
Denno, D. W. (2006). The Scientific Shortcomings of Roper v. Simmons. Retrieved from : http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/faculty_scholarship/116
In the summer of 1995, the periodical Wilson Quarterly published "Enemies of Promise," an essay by J. Michael Bishop, a Nobel Prize-winning professor of microbiology from the University of California, San Francisco. The essay addressed the renewed criticism the scientific community has received in recent years by an ignorant and unduly critical public. The overall effect this single work has had on the world may be nominal, but the points Professor Bishop raises are significant, and provide ammunition against the ignorants who maintain this "intellectual war," centuries after it was sparked.
Opportunistic scientists, the most hypocritical deviants of the modern age, revolve around the scientific method, or at least they used to. The scientific method once involved formulating a hypothesis from a problem posed, experimenting, and forming a conclusion that best explained the data collected. Yet today, those who are willing to critique the work of their peers are themselves performing the scientific method out of sequence. I propose that scientists, or the "treasure hunters" of that field, are no longer interested in permanent solutions, achieved through proper use of the scientific method, and rather are more interested in solutions that guarantee fame and fortune.
From my past readings and experiences, I think that humans need to take every step of scientific development extremely seriously. As we see from now, people are arguing about the contradiction between science and morality, moreover, that the power science has now is too enough to destroy us already, for instance the nuclear energy. The pros and cons of scientific development shape science itself, in some cases controversial. Plus, I think the scientific morality and power control are two big deals that need to be controlled. Not to eliminate, but to put them under control.
It should be noted that by restricting research of nearly any kind (yes I do have some morals) would simply result in the loss of America?s greatest thinkers.
The following article analysis review by Team B illustrates and identifies several examples of statistics abuse in the practical world as a result of flawed research. The following examples demonstrate how a manger could and in many examples, does make erroneous decisions due to inaccurate statistics. The team has compiled the results by detailing the respective articles.
This discussion focuses on two issues: the relationship between evidence and hypotheses; and, the role of "contextual" values in inquiry. Longino contrasts contextual values with constitutive values. The latter, the "values generated from an understanding of the goals of scientific inquiry," "are the source of the rules determining what constitutes acceptable scientific practice or scientific method" (L1990, 4). That these values influence inquiry is not a problem. But the former, "personal, social, and cultural values," are thought to threaten the integrity of scientific inquiry (L1990, 4-5).
One of the biggest incentives to perform scientific research is the acclaim that comes from making novel discoveries. For some, this is the driving force behind their work and can cause a conflict of interest that sometimes overrides the needs of the patient in cases with unethical actors. This is most relevant to case of John Darsee. To get data for his publications he would often falsify results and would perform experimental stent procedures on unknowing patients. Darsee’s ambitions were put above the health and wellness of the patients he had taken an oath to protect.
In The Great Influenza by John M. Barry, the author writes about scientists, and their constant struggle with research. Barry emphasizes the difficult challenges, and mysteries people in the science occupation experience. The author also explains the qualities one must possess to be a scientist, and the all-or-nothing research they must partake in. Throughout this passage of The Great Influenza by John M. Barry, the author characterizes scientists, and their everyday research as spontaneous and unpredictable through the use of several rhetoric strategies.
Most scientists want to be able to share their data. Scientists are autonomous by nature. Begelman (1968) refutes an argument made by I. L. Horowitz, a scientist who believes that the government is in “gross violations of the autonomous nature of science”. Begelman believes, however, that there is a system of checks and balances in the government regulation system, and that this system is in place to protect citizens.... ...
Lewis, Thomas. "The Hazards of Science." The Presence of Others. Eds. Andrea A. Lunsford, John J. Ruszkiewicz. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1997. 236-242.
Unethical experiments have occurred long before people considered it was wrong. The protagonist of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study ( Vollmann 1448 ).The reasons for the experiments were to understand, prevent, and treat disease, and often there is not a substitute for a human subject. This is true for study of illnesses such as depression, delusional states that manifest themselves partly by altering human subjectivity, and impairing cognitive functioning. Concluding, some experiments have the tendency to destroy the lives of the humans that have been experimented on.
The strain between defining what is right and what is wrong and what to do with something wrong that benefits what is right. Many medical journals and statements have been erased or simply not published because of the controversy surrounding the experiments stated. However, should a life saving outcome or beneficial research simply be denied because
In his article entitled "Enemies of Promise," J. Michael Bishop attempts to defend the creditability of science. As a scientist, Bishop believes that science has "solved many of nature's puzzles and greatly enlarged human knowledge" (237) as well as "vastly improved human welfare" (237). Despite these benefits, Bishop points out that some critics are skeptical and have generally mistrusted the field. Bishop believes that "the source of these dissatisfactions appears to be an exaggerated view of what science can do" (239). In the defense of science, Bishop argues that this problem is not due to science rather, it results from a lack of resources. "When scientists fail to meet unrealistic expectations, they are condemned by critics who do not recognize the limits of science" (240).