Ethics in Science
Speaker: Dr Mark Hocknull
Title: Ethics in Science
Date of seminar: 29th October 2025
“Science stands on the edge of error, and the nature of the scientific endeavour at the frontiers means that there is always uncertainty” - Frank Kelly FRS.
Dr Mark Hocknull’s seminar explored the ethical foundations of scientific research, highlighting how uncertainty, integrity, and moral reasoning can shape scientific practice. The theme of uncertainty from the thought-provoking quote above serves as a backdrop for the seminar’s core message: Ethical scientific behaviour is essential if the public and wider scientific community are to trust research conducted on the cutting edge.
One of the main examples Dr Hocknull discussed in the lecture was the case of Jan Hendrick Schon, or as his fellow scientists viewed him, “the golden boy of condensed matter physics”[1]. Schon fabricated data in his published work to push himself as a rising star in his field of molecular electronics and superconductivity. Through the use of repeated graphs, inconsistencies, and his inability to reproduce his findings, investigations into his work found that a substantial amount of his work was fraudulent. However, scientific fraud doesn’t just damage the career of the individual involved; it erodes trust within the community, wastes funding and delays the progress of real scientific breakthroughs. Dr Hocknull joked that fraud turns scientists into politicians, only in it to chase career benefits rather than the truth.
The Schon case raises additional questions about the reliability of peer review. Richard Dawkins argues that science is more trustworthy than religion, as scientific research must go through meticulous scrutiny from peers compared to religious texts, which can be written by anyone without evidence or testing. However, if fraudulent research like Schon’s can pass through the supposed gold standard in peer review, it challenges Dawkins and other similar arguments and highlights a possible weakness in the system.
You might be sitting there thinking, “But why does this matter?” Ethics in science is much broader than just academic debate. Society depends on reliable scientific research for medicine, technology, environmental policies, and the list goes on and on. These are things that have the capacity to completely shape people’s lives, and if we allow misconduct to occur, we undermine the trust that people place in our scientific institutions. In short, Ethics keeps the scientific system functioning.
There were also three major ethical theories put forward to help us think about what is “right” or “wrong” in science.
Kantian ethics, which emphasises moral duty, says that scientists have a rational obligation to act truthfully. Under Kantian ethics, dishonest means can never be justified, even if they lead to a scientific outcome that is beneficial to society.
On the other hand, there is Utilitarian ethics, which evaluates actions by their consequences. A choice is morally good if it maximises overall benefit, which clashes with the ideas put forward by Kantian ethics. This is most famously illustrated in the trolley thought experiment and referenced in pop culture by Spock, “the needs of many outweigh the needs of the few”. This idea does pose difficult questions in science: can unethical research be justified if it leads to scientific breakthroughs? One of the most famous examples of this is the experiments conducted in nazi Germany, where 15754 documented victims were tested on in the name of scientific progress [2].
Finally, we have virtue ethics, which focuses on a person’s character rather than their individual actions. If one becomes a good person, morally sound decisions will naturally follow. To put this into the context of scientific research, a virtuous scientist would demonstrate honesty, humility, and responsibility. This framework moves away from disingenuous research and its consequences and instead focuses on the scientific community’s duty to nurture integrity.
To conclude, Dr Hocknull’s seminar highlighted how ethical practice within the scientific community is key to both the advancement of our knowledge and keeping the trust of the public. He demonstrated this by using real-world examples such as the Schon case, which ultimately emphasised that the integrity of science relies not only on the rigorous methods and peer reviews, but also on the moral character of the individuals conducting the research.
[1] Inquiry Reveals That Physicist Jan Hendrik Schon Faked His Research, EBSCO - September 2002
[2] Nazi human experimentation, Wikipedia
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.