Review of Dr Mark Hocknull’s Seminar “The Ethics of Science”
On Wednesday, 29th October, Dr Mark Hocknull delivered a seminar titled “The Ethics of Science”, exploring the question of what holds scientists accountable for the way they produce findings and conduct experiments. The seminar examined the boundaries of ethical acceptability in science and emphasized the importance of moral responsibility in research.
Dr Hocknull began with a thought-provoking scenario: a scientist on the verge of publishing a career-defining paper discovers a potential error that could undermine their hypothesis. Should they still publish? This dilemma framed the discussion on integrity and responsibility in scientific practice.
To illustrate the stakes, Dr Hocknull contrasted two real-world cases. Daniel Bolnick, an evolutionary biologist, retracted one of his papers after identifying an error, demonstrating transparency and accountability. His career continues successfully, showing how honesty can preserve trust in science. In stark contrast, Jan Hendrik Schon, a physicist at Bell Labs, knowingly published fraudulent data in the early 2000s. Schon’s misconduct, later confirmed in at least 16 cases, led to one of the most infamous scandals in physics, resulting in the retraction of numerous papers and the collapse of his career [1]. These examples highlight how ethical choices directly shape both scientific credibility and personal reputation.
Dr Hocknull then introduced three major ethical theories as lenses for evaluating scientific conduct:
- Kantian Ethics: Morality is grounded in universal, absolute rules, independent of consequences. A scientist must act according to principles of honesty and rigor, even if the outcome is personally disadvantageous [2].
- Utilitarian Ethics: Actions are judged by their consequences. If the overall benefit outweighs the harm, the action may be justified. This raises difficult questions in science, such as whether potentially harmful experiments are acceptable if they promise significant societal benefits [3].
- Virtue Ethics: Focuses on the character of the individual. A virtuous scientist acts with honesty, courage, and integrity, embodying the qualities of a “good” person rather than merely following rules or calculating outcomes [4].
Building on these frameworks, Dr Hocknull referenced broader institutional efforts to codify ethical standards. For instance, the World Economic Forum’s Code of Ethics for Researchers emphasizes principles such as engaging with the public, pursuing truth, minimizing harm, supporting diversity, mentoring, and accountability. These guidelines reflect the expectation that scientists are not isolated from society but are responsible stewards of public trust and resources.
Conclusion
The seminar’s central message was clear: scientists bear both ethical and moral responsibility for their work. The maxim “just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should” captures the essence of scientific accountability. Researchers must remain mindful of the societal impact of their discoveries, ensuring that science serves the public good rather than undermining it.
By combining philosophical theory with real-world examples, Dr Hocknull’s seminar underscored that ethics is not an abstract concern but a practical necessity for sustaining trust, credibility, and progress in science.
Sources:
[1] Schon scandal, Wikipedia EBSCO Inquiry Reveals That Physicist Jan Hendrik Schon Faked His Research, EBSCO September 2002: Schon Scandal Report Released, American Physical Society
[2] J. Schmidt, “Kantian ethics,” Corporate Finance Institute, 2025. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/esg/kantian-ethics/
[3] Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2025). Utilitarianism. In Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/utilitarianism
[4] Chen, J.-Y. (2015). Virtue and the scientist: Using virtue ethics to examine science’s ethical and moral challenges. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(2), 335-353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9543-0
50823
You have presented your review very well, including the speaker’s name, the seminar title, and the date in the first sentence. There were also no glaring issues with your grammar throughout. It was clear that you had a good understanding of the seminar’s content, as you accurately reported and explained the three major ethical theories, as well as the real-life examples of Bolnik and Schon. This links to how you accurately contextualised the practical consequences of ethical vs unethical conduct. There is clear evidence that you have conducted external research for your review; however, you could have included a direct quote from one of these sources. Finally, you have used an appropriate writing style and level of technicality so that anyone can understand the content of your review. Overall, you have done a really good job :)
67384
Presentation 3/3: The date, title and name of the speaker are present at the beginning, and the blog is written in good English and grammar.
Content 3/3: The content covers a good amount of information from the seminar.
Context 3/3: Societal and research contexts are explored and explained well.
Style 3/3: Very suitable for a lay audience and engaging to read.
External source 2/3: It is clear that external sources and references have been used; however, to fulfil the mark scheme, a reference and quoted opinion to balance/support the reporting could be added.
Final grade: 14/15, it is overall a great piece of work that is engaging and covers the seminar content well.
42890
Very easy to understand regardless of your prior knowledge of the topic. It reads and flows well, and is clear you understand the topic. Apart from the missing direct quote it is very good
26801
Presentation: 14/15
You have followed the criteria of including the speaker’s name, title and date of the seminar, shown clearly at the start of the blogpost.
Content: 13/15
Conveyed the real world cases of ethical dilemmas in science by summarising the content in the Hocknull’s seminar accurately.
Context: 13/15
Provided good background on the definitions of the three ethical theories.
Style: 14/15
It is very easy to read as blogpost has a coherent structure when moving from one topic to another, and all terminology is suited for the general public.
Other sources: 14/15
Referenced additional sources for readers to explore for the factuality of the blogpost content where definitions could be misinterpreted.
Overall Mark: 14/15
Feedback:
A minor critique is that the year was not part of date included in the blogpost. You could’ve used more historical examples from the Seminar like Edward Jenner, as more of the general public now learns about him from a early age. The tone of this blogpost feels more formal which depending on the individual can be seen as pro or con.