The Ethics of Science
History is fraught with examples of people only looking out for themselves, and that is all but certain to continue, but the impacts of this can vary from the irritation of a few to the suffering of millions. Scientific research is certainly one of the areas in which both the morals of individuals and the laws of the time can have massive impacts on the general public and, as such, ethics is a topic of constant debate. This was the subject of Dr Mark Hocknull’s seminar “The Ethics of Science” on the 29th October 2025.
Dr Hocknull started of with a short thought experiment: what would you do if hours before a paper you’d written was due to be published, already having been approved, you found a small mistake? You were the only one to have noticed yet and there’s not enough time to determine whether this would dramatically affect the ultimate conclusion of your paper. As you would hope, the consensus among the audience appeared to be that the best cause of action would be to halt the publication until either an amendment pointing out the error could be written (as it may only be of little significance) or the mistake could be fixed entirely. Of course it is easy to say this in the hypothetical, and unlikely that everyone would actually react this way.
After this, Dr Hocknull presented the three main theories of ethics. These are various systems which would, if followed, make you a perfectly ethical person (at least according to their respective creator). The first of these is Kanitan Ethics. This is grounded in respect for others and revolves around a universal moral law. According to this theory you should only take an action if it would be reasonable for everyone else to do the same. The second theory discussed was Utilitarian Ethics. Unlike the previous theory actions aren’t necessarily considered to be good or bad in a vacuum, they only acquire that property based on the outcome. The final is Virtue Ethics. Here the actions of any person are of less interest. A person is only ethical if they possess good qualities that allow them to apply reasonable judgements - thereby allowing them to take the appropriate action. Although these may seem quite different, each have something to say about rules, outcomes, and virtues [1]. The main difference is in which the fundamental one (from which the others can then be derived) is.
Applying these theories to the original thought experiment we get fairly similar outcomes. Using Kanitan ethics, publishing the paper without any alternations would be deceptive and clearly go against the framework - it would lead to dreadful outcomes if everyone did it. Using virtue ethics, it would be sensible to conclude that a person holding good values wouldn’t publish without at least alluding to the fact there was a known mistake. Utilitarian ethics is a bit more difficult as the outcome cannot be known beforehand - the field of study isn’t even mentioned. Nevertheless, in most cases you can imagine quite a list of possible negative consequences - especially if the paper were to be in an area such as medicine. The positives nearly only come to the author(s) in the form of career progression or prestige. Even these may only be temporary however, as if it is discovered that the errors were known before the paper was published it could destroy any of their future prospects.
Unfortunately, this is not just a hypothetical. In 2001 Jan Schon announced that he had produced a transistor, much smaller than traditionally possible using silicon, using organic molecules. He won awards for his work and rose to fame until it was discovered that no one - not even Jan himself - could recreate the original results. It wasn’t until late 2002 that a committee published a final report containing all the evidence of his misconduct, including falsified and reused datasets [2]. An example with more of a lasting effect was the 1998 paper by Andrew Wakefield on a supposed link between the MMR vaccine and autism. This kickstarted the modern anti-vaccine movement which still persists, despite the best work of investigative journalist Brian Deer in exposing the mountain of misconduct [3]. His series of reports on the paper provided evidence for the allegations against Adrew Wakefield including falsified data and conflicts of interest. This is not even to mention the horrendous acts committed against the subjects of the study itself.
It is easy to put scientists on a pedestal and forget that, like any other human, they can be subject to bias - unconscious or not. This is why the peer-review process exists, but even so there are some cases in which this is not enough. Dr Hocknull emphasis the importance of 6 values that scientists should hold to compliment the existing processes. These are: honesty, objectivity, tolerance, doubt of certitude, unselfish engagement, and accountability. With all of these upheld we can hope to move forward into a future of trust and progress in all fields of science.
[1] “Virtue Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).” Accessed: 2025. [Online]. Available: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/
[2] “Inquiry Reveals That Physicist Jan Hendrik Schon Faked His Research.” Accessed: 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/physics/inquiry-reveals-physicist-jan-hendrik-schon-faked-his-research
[3] B. Deer, “Andrew Wakefield: the fraud investigation.” Accessed: 2025. [Online]. Available: https://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-summary.htm
96814
Presentation
- Date, title, and speaker: Clearly stated in the introduction: “Speaker: Dr Mark Hocknull, Title: Ethics in Science, Date of seminar: 29th October 2025.”
- Grammar and English: The writing is generally strong, and the language flows well. There is a minor spelling error (“nature” spelt as “naturg”), which should be corrected.
- Score: Very Good.
Content
- Coverage of seminar content: The piece provides an accurate and comprehensive summary of the seminar, including historical context and key examples such as the Schon case.
- Accuracy: References are correctly cited, and the explanations align with established research.
- Score: Very Good.
Context
- Societal and research relevance: The blog successfully situates the topic within both historical and modern contexts. It connects ethics in science to popular culture and raises open questions about morality, demonstrating awareness of ongoing debates.
- Score: Excellent.
Style
- Accessibility and engagement: The tone is conversational and suitable for a lay audience. The use of humour and references to fictional characters like Spock makes complex ideas approachable without sacrificing substance.
- Score: Excellent.
External Sources
- References and quoted opinion: References [1] and [2] are relevant and correctly included. However, the piece lacks a direct quoted opinion from an external source, which the mark scheme specifies as necessary for “balancing/supporting the reporting.” Adding a quotation from one of the cited sources would strengthen credibility.
- Score: Good (would be Excellent with an integrated quotation).
Final Review
This is a well-written, engaging, and accurate piece that effectively conveys the seminar’s key themes of morality and ethics in science. It demonstrates strong contextual awareness and uses an accessible style that will resonate with a broad audience.
Suggested improvements:
- Correct the minor spelling error.
- Integrate a direct quotation from one of the cited sources to meet the mark scheme and enhance authority.
Overall impression: A thoughtful and compelling review that captures the essence of Dr Hocknull’s seminar while making complex ethical concepts understandable and relevant.
93367
Presentation: 3/3 - Title, date and speaker clearly stated at the start of the blog, good grammar and English.
Content: 3/3 - Seminar content is well covered and shown.
Context: 3/3 - Clear understanding and all relevant to the seminar.
Style: 2/3 - Good paragraph layout, clear to read, subheadings might make it more engaging and smoother.
External source: 2/3 - Clearly shown own understanding and references, would have been more beneficial to find the actual article used on Wikipedia rather than reference the website itself.
Overall a smooth read, well done!
60795
Presentation: 2/3- Title, date and speaker are clearly stated. Generally very good grammar and spelling.
Content: 3/3- Seminar content is well covered and explained.
Context: 3/3- Does a very good job at contextualising the topic within modern culture as well as historical events.
Style: 2/3- Not a fan of the singular one line paragraph but aside from that the blog was laid out exceptionally well.
External sources: 2/3- Whilst sources were very relevant it would have been beneficial to include at least one more.