First Draft - Week 5 Seminar Blog
Seminar Title: Ethics in Science
Speaker: Dr. Mark Hocknull
Date: 29 October 2025
The seminar began with an “imaginary case study” [1]:
“You are a young scientist poised to publish a significant paper that will make your reputation, but you discover that there is an potential error in your work that no one else will spot but which if true will undermine your brilliant new hypothesis. Should you publish anyway?”
The above case study characterises the paper as “significant”, yet it states that “no one else will spot” the “potential error”. The adjective “significant” connotes that the research documented by the paper will have “significant” implications and direct applications to real-world scenarios e.g. healthcare, nuclear, AI safety/ethics, national security/resilience, medicine, pharmaceuticals, military/defence, foreign policy/diplomacy, fire safety, climate change etc. A “potential error” in research involving any of those non-exhaustive examples has the “potential” (this time with a higher “potential” than the “potential error”) to put human lives in danger and in harm’s way on a catastrophically large scale for future generations to come, due to the long-term impact of “significant” research. If it’s on healthcare, then human lives are endangered due to the “error”. If it concerns defence/military or even foreign policy/diplomacy, the national security of democratic nations could be at risk. If it is related to fire safety and climate change, then sustainable infrastructure is at risk of damage. To illustrate a local example, one of the Third Year Projects offered here at the University of Lincoln, titled “Mathematical machine learning and predictive modelling in a life-critical environment” [2], emphasises in its abstract that “it is obviously extremely important that the outcomes from this project are correct and of a high standard, since decisions at Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue could be made based on the project’s results.”
Whether it is “significant” research or not, “significant” care must always be taken so that conclusions are not undermined by erroneous data - this is the foundation of Academic Integrity policies in several institutions worldwide today. Most of us in the seminar were, as the case said, “young scientists”, at the beginnings of our long journey in research/academia/STEM. As such, this case doesn’t just reflect a hypothetical scenario but a moment that tested humans throughout history - presenting a dilemma between ambition (disguised as greed) and integrity (both personal and academic)…
However, this dilemma between duty (also known as ‘Dharma’ in Sanskrit) and desire resonates beyond the modern world. It mirrors the moral battlefield which is the context behind the Bhagavad Gita, a dialogue between Arjuna (a warrior who felt lost and anxious) and Krishna (Arjuna’s charioteer extensively believed to be an avatar/incarnation of Lord Vishnu himself). In the Gita, Krishna advised that “You have a right to perform your prescribed duties, but you are not entitled to the fruits of your actions” [3]. The Gita’s guidance is not only useful for the ancient battle between good and evil, but also applicable to the inner mental battle between duty and desire - like the case study above: the duty (Dharma) of the “young scientist” is to use their scientific knowledge to positively help people - not to chase prestige, ego, desire recognition, rewards etc. Knowingly and wilfully publishing erroneous research undermines Dharma in the pursuit of fixating on short-lived materialistic desires. The “young scientist” must go beyond the outcome and their fear of failure when carrying out their duties, because when unpredictable change occurs (like discovering an error), it strips away the very illusion that they always controlled that outcome. This reminds me of the advice my secondary school teachers gave my entire Year 9 cohort before starting our GCSEs: “You may not know what exam result you might get, but if you do nothing, there will be no result.”
Today, a copy of this Bhagavad Gita is contained in the House of Commons Library and the Despatch Boxes - places of significant importance for those in UK public office. The 7 Nolan Principles of Public Life apply to every public servant, of which the very first Nolan Principle itself reflects the Gita’s guidance [4]:
“Selflessness: Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.”
As such, this Principle provides meaning to the term ‘public servant’: a servant who serves the public via selfless service. This shows that the concept of selfless service isn’t just applicable to the “young scientist”, but also transcends beyond this case study to UK Government officials, civil servants, public bodies, NHS, the police etc. Do you think willingly publishing erroneous research (especially when human lives are endangered) is a form of selfless service? It betrays the trust and high regard the general public holds for the scientific community.
The seminar also explored both Kantian ethics and Utilitarianism [1]. Kantian ethics strictly insists following the duty, whilst Utilitarianism seems to tempt the mind by attempting to justify for the greater good. The Gita transcends both views by emphasising the intention behind every action. For example, today in a world where scientific expertise influences entire government policies, the intention must be to positively impact humankind. A willingly concealed “error” (with the intention of gaining materialistic rewards) has the “potential” to damage the livelihoods of future generations, which is the exact opposite of Utilitarianism. Moreover, knowingly publishing erroneous data can also be viewed as an akratic sin - as linguistically dissecting the Greek lexis “akrasia” yields “without (a-) strength/power (-kratos)”, referring to the lack of self-control by wilfully acting against better judgement [5].
In conclusion, it is instead much healthier for the “young scientist” to adopt a growth mindset by asking themselves: “Where did this error come from and how can I fix it step-by-step? What exactly went wrong and where? Should I communicate with my supervisor when I’m stuck? How can I learn from this experience? What are the real-world implications if I publish this erroneous paper on the long-term future of society? What kind of example/inspiration do I want to set to those young people (aspiring scientists maybe) looking up to me? Why did I become a scientist in the first place and why did I ultimately choose this path? Is it to serve society or to fuel my own ego by trying to gain recognition via unethical means?” This is because the true hallmark of a scientist is to constantly ask questions and rigorously inquire the natural world around them.
References:
[1] M. Hocknull, “Ethics in Science,” in Ethics in Science, 2025.
[2] SEPS, “Projects MTH3011-MTH3005-MTH3012,” University of Lincoln, 2025.
[3] “Chapter 2, Verse 47,” in Bhagavad Gita.
[4] Committee on Standards in Public Life, “The Seven Principles of Public Life,” UK Government (GOV.UK), 31 May 1995. [Online]. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-7-principles-of-public-life/the-7-principles-of-public-life—2. [Accessed 13 November 2025].
[5] Oxford English Dictionary, “akrasia, n. meanings, etymology and more,” [Online]. Available: https://www.oed.com/dictionary/akrasia_n?tl=true. [Accessed 13 November 2025].
31102
It may be worth removing some of the quotation marks in the first main paragraph as I’m not sure all of them are neccessary (e.g. A “potential error” in research, and, endangered due to the “error”).
The parallels to religious texts are interesting and they add some nice context to how these ideas were viewed historically.
You haven’t mentioned Virtue Ethics (the third main theory of ethics discussed in the seminar). It might be worth talking about this - at least briefly - as you have done with both Kanitan Ethics and Utilitarian Ethics.
The blog reads nicely and there are no obvious gramatical errors. Overall it’s an interesting read!