Ethics in Science
Can false information cause more damage than good? If the benefit of a method outweighs the cost, is it morally acceptable? Questions such as these were posed in the presentation ‘Ethics in science’ by Mark Hucknull on 29/10/25.
If you have created a piece of work and just before posting it you think there is an error that changes the result, should you post it knowing it could be wrong?
Others have faced a similar problem and depending on how they handled the situation it can make or break a career in the industry. For example, Jan Schon was a Nobel Prize nominee, researched into semiconductors. However, researchers found repetitions and inconsistencies in his data for example, matching graphs were used in different papers to represent different experiments (not just similar identical). Instead on admitting fault he stated that he was “confident” in his research. After that, it was found that no one (including him) could reproduce the results leading to Schon and the supervisor being under scrutiny. [1]
Whereas Daniel Bolnick posted his results relating to fishes’ diets and their body types (2009). This research had lots of data and was plotted on graph. However, later it was discovered the mistake through a colleague being unable to reproduce the results in 2016. This led to Bolnick looking into his original work and discovering that a piece of computer code was incorrect. Immediately, he retracted the paper, and most find his humility honourable. This shows that those who build on lies become frauds and those who admit their mistakes can improve their careers in science. [2]
When fraudulent data is fed into the community it causes damage. Such as undermining the scientific integrity, wasting public funds, damaging public trust, derailing careers and highlighting weaknesses in peer reviewing.
There are many ways to view ethics. The three main theories are Kanitan ethics, Utilitarian ethics and virtue ethics. However, none of these theories work individually.
Kanitan ethics is where actions conform to moral law. Utilitarian ethics is where the benefits and cost of the proposed action is calculated. Virtue ethics is where a person’s values and character suggests whether they have good judgement (which gives no guidance or definitive answers).
Is it wrong to arrive at a good result though improper means or is it acceptable if the benefit outweighs the cost? For example, Edward Jenner found that giving someone cowpox can save them from getting smallpox leading to the development of vaccinations which radically changed medical practices in immunology. However, this was tested by inoculating James Phipps without parental consent. Was this ethically, correct?
Overall, there are no firm rules to ethics but there are values that should be upheld. How can scientists ensure these values are upheld when the pressure to succeed may tempt them to compromise?
[1] L. Cassuto, “Big trouble in the world of ‘Big Physics,’” The Guardian, Sep. 18, 2002. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2002/sep/18/science.highereducation
[2] Clive Thompson, “Real Scientists Admit When They’re Wrong,” Wired, Feb. 12, 2018. https://www.wired.com/story/real-heroes-have-the-guts-to-admit-theyre-wrong/
56001
Date, title and name of speaker are included with good grammar throughout. Good coverage of majority of content covered in the seminar. Good use of historical context to back points. Very easy to understand and suitable for a lay audience. I can see that references have been made, maybe just add a direct quotation. Overall, really good blog.
46509
Anonymous Code : 46509
Overall Blog Presentation: Good presentation, it includes all necessary details. Grammar also looks good to me. 3/3
Accurate Reporting: You have understood the presentation and provided a suitable overview. If I was being picky, I would say to maybe explain the virtues in Virtue Ethics. 2/3
Accurate Contextualization: You’ve contextualized the subject well, and commented on the societal impact it has. 3/3
External Source: You’ve referenced a couple things to support your work. 3/3
Writing Style and Technical Level: Your work is easy to understand, even for the lay man. 3/3
Overall: 14/15. Really good, my problems are mostly me being picky. You did well!