Ethics in Science
‘Honesty is the best policy’ was my main takeaway from a seminar I attended by Mark Hocknull on 29th October 2025 titled ‘Ethics in Science’. It explored the importance of ensuring the process of producing science and the effects of science on society are ethical.
Ethics is a branch of philosophy based on what is morally right or wrong and the principles that guide human behaviour. There have been many theories around this throughout history. Kantian ethics states that we can freely choose to conform to moral law and act rationally. Utilitarian ethics states we must calculate the benefit versus cost of proposed actions and choose the decision with the ‘most good’. This theory answers ‘yes’ to whether the end justifies the means. For example, take Edward Jenner who was responsible for the creation of the first vaccine, he injected his gardener’s son with a cowpox virus to give immunity against small pox, even though the boy then would have cowpox. Utilitarians would agree that this was ethical as the vaccine has helped save millions. Finally, Virtue Ethics states that it is down to a decision makers values and character and a virtuous person is someone with good qualities to make the right decisions. However, Aristotle didn’t believe that such a person exists.
According to the seminar, a virtuous scientist has six key values: honesty, objectivity, tolerance of others, doubt of certitude (being alert to possible errors), unselfish engagement and accountability. The importance of these attributes was highlighted through two conflicting examples of scientists and how they dealt with errors in their work. Take Jon Schon for example: he is seen as one of the largest cases of scientific fraud in modern physics. A man who was likely set for a Nobel Prize was discovered to have many duplications and inconsistencies in his work. No one could reproduce his data and it was found that he was re using the same data. He did not take accountability and now no longer practises. This differs from Daniel Bolnick who retracted his work as soon as errors were noticed and continues to have a flourishing career in the field. This highlights the importance of accountability.
Mark Hocknull also went into detail about impacts of not being ethical. For individuals, it can lead to tarnishing and derailment of a career (like Jon Schon) and loss of credibility. To the whole science community, if errors and inaccurate data are wrongly published, it highlights weaknesses in peer review. It could lead to question how is it possible for these errors to be published if it has been peer reviewed and how it has managed to fall through the cracks. To the public, it can damage their trust. Lots of research is done using public funds so anything done unethically could be seen as these funds being wasted and may even lead to a reduction of funding if suspected it isn’t being used in the right way. Therefore, it is important that “the philosophy and ethics of mathematics alongside its teaching all stages from school to university” is included according to The Ethics of Mathematics: Is Mathematics Harmful? so that we minimise the future effects of unethical behaviour [1].
Overall, an insightful lecture which sparked much conversation and debate about what is ethically right or wrong. It highlighted the importance of honesty in the academic world to ensure findings are as accurate as possible and if there are errors these are quickly pointed out or corrected.
[1] Ernest, P. (2018). The Ethics of Mathematics: Is Mathematics Harmful?. In: Ernest, P. (eds) The Philosophy of Mathematics Education Today. ICME-13 Monographs. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77760-3_12
76354
Successfully gave the speaker, title and date of seminar. You concisely summed up the topic, covering all the points Mark did without losing any of its meaning or depth. I like how your external source links to mathematics, so it contextualises it to people doing that degree in this module too, but earlier you also mention the connection between the public and scientists, so the blog fits both audiences. The tone has a good balance of being accessible for the public whilst also sounding professional. It’s clear you understood the seminar well to be able to write in this way :-)
42994
The speaker’s name, seminar title and date are all correctly included. I picked up on a couple of typos, in paragraph 2, small pox should be all one word - smallpox and in paragraph 3 re using should also be all one word - reusing. Otherwise the report is well presented, logical and flows nicely. The context and tone seem appropriate for a lay audience.
The first sentence of your blog report hits the nail on the head - honesty is the best policy. This is the key takeaway from the seminar and you reinforce this throughout. You discuss the examples provided in the seminar to add context showing that you have understood the content and have accurately reported as such.
I like that you explained the consequences of poor ethics inside and outside of the scientific community highlighting your awareness of how bad decision-making can influence both.
Your reference is both relevant and accurately recorded and adds further evidence to your writing, it is interesting that you chose a mathematics reference, perhaps an indication of your field of study.
If I am being picky, perhaps you could expand on the reference to Jon Schon - could you explain why he no longer practices? That he had his doctorate removed? It could be interpreted that it was his own choice and not forced upon him. Doing this would perhaps reinforce the severity of poor ethical decisions to the reader.
All in all, I did enjoy reading this blog report and it is a strong piece of work that demonstrates a clear understanding of the seminar and it’s implications in science and academia.