Ethics as it

Ethics as it relates to Scientific Communication Gail M Biggers Grand Canyon University BIO 317V Nildari Sarker July 9, 2011

Ethics as it Ethics as it relates to Scientific Communication Technologists have changed the way communication is used to describe the new developments and discoveries: the peer-reviewed scientific paper. The internet is full of inaccurate and equally risky information that is hard for people lacking an education in science or teaching to decipher in perspective, above all given the confusion inborn in the scientific process. Individuals explaining science for the community; whether its a member of the press,

instructors, or other communicators, should make use of the peer- review as a standard. (Clarke, 2008) In science as well as in other professions a handful of people will try to cheat the system. Charles Dawson was an individual who did so. He was a substandard British archaeologist and paleontologist born in 1864. In the late nineteenth century Dawson had discovered fossil teeth his newly discovered species were named after him. For example, Dawson unearthed fossil teeth of a formerly unfamiliar type of mammal, so he named it Plagiaulax dawsoni. There were other discoveries named after him one of the three new types of dinosaurs he discovered were called Iguanodon dawsoni and a different form of fossil plant Salaginella dawsoni(Capri & Egger, 2009) With these discoveries he became very famous. Charles Dawson was selected by the British Geological Society under the title fellow, also he was chosen for Society of Antiquaries of London. Dawsons biggest discovery was in 1912 when he showed the public parts of a human looking skull and jawbone. He had influenced scientists that that this was a new form of species that was the missing relationship between man and ape. Dawson referred to his discovery as the Piltdown Man. This discovery had an impact on the scientific community perplexing the scientific community for years to come. Even long after the passing of Dawson in the year

Ethics as it 1915. There was scientist who did not take what Dawson said as fact from the beginning although it was accepted by many and admired. In 1949 a professor of anthropology from Oxford University by the name of Kenneth Oakley, place the time of skull as being 500 years old instead of 500,000. He still believed (Oakley) that this a genuine just maybe dated wrong. In 1953, a student in physical

anthropology named Joseph Weiner who also attended Oxford University attended a conference which addressed paleontology and began to notice that the Piltdown Man did not fit the with other human ancestor fossils. Once he realized this he told his college professor at Oxford Wilfred Edward Le Gros Clark who did a follow up with Oakley. In the end the three understood that the characterizations of the skull did not show any missing link between men and ape but instead an ostentatious fraud. He had used a skull from a medieval human joined it with the jawbone of an orangutan and the teeth of a fossilized monkey. He chemically treated the bones so they would look as if they were from that time and the teeth were filed so they would fit in the skull. (Capri, PhD, & Egger PhD, 2009) Developments in science rest on the consistency of the research record so in the end people like Dawson are exclusion rather than the rule in the scientific society. According to Balakumar, Murphy, and Jagadeesh (2007) research is the original and intellectual investigation undertaken to discover, interpret, revise the knowledge and improve the understandings of any facet of science or major subject of its specialization (p. 303) Additionally according to Roland (2007) to secure and maintain public support for research, scientists must increasing show ethical and responsible conduct in their research (p. 424) Ethics is a set of guidelines that scientists are obligated to follow they define the difference between right and wrong. Most professions have a set of ethical practices to follow for

Ethics as it the professionals in the field. For instance the physicians must abide by the Hippocratic Oath

First do no harm engineers have a moral guide that they hold fast to that says hold paramount the safety and welfare to the public Inside these line of work as well as scientist these guidelines are embedded that those who are practicing have time to think about the adherence to these ethics it is their way of life. When a breach of ethics occurs it is looked upon as a serious offense. Punishment happens within the profession as well as license being revoked and sometimes discipline through law. (Capri, PhD & Egger, PhD, 2009) Self-monitoring is one of the initiatives taken on by the scientific community. This helps in ensuring ethics in research by including ethics in the curriculums of universities teaching ethics and ethical conduct. An alternative is to embrace ethic rules, conduct, and paradigms. Certain conditions have special rules for a scientific organization rather than including the scientific community. Additionally, decisions are based on the output of the scientific community (Haas 2003 p. 38) That is why it is essential to safely measure the research integrity and the output; otherwise the public will lose its trust in the researchers as well as the papers published from the studies that they have conducted. In order to maintain ethical standards scientist should be honest in reporting scientific data. Careful in the transcription and analysis of scientific results to escape a slip up; avoid the influence of outside sources use independent analysis and explanation of results based data. Methods will be shared openly, data, and analysis through publication and presentation. Sources should be credited properly includes information, data, and ideas. As far as society is concern the scientists have a moral obligation overall and in some subjects as to when it comes to human and animals and the responsibility in weighing their rights. The most significant challenge is the scientific communitys sustained exceptional rule in publications and papers in regards to science

Ethics as it which is the peer-review. This where the scientists peers have the chance to review and check

the claims obtained in the publication before publishing the paper. It has been said that the peerreview is under fire because it is seen as being biased. Some scientist has used it to either give the person credit or not. It has been used to in favor of grabbing headlines conclusions and against firm but not so glamorous research. Even though these claims have been launched peerreview is still recognized as the one measure of scientific quality that works. Peer review works because it is by the simple fact that the wide majority of science papers published can be reproducible and built on. A peer-reviewed paper is the most authentic account of the scientist research it avoids exaggerating its conclusions and hopefully the writing is easy to understand. If the review has no technical problems it is approved to be published if something is wrong it will be returned to the author and he can make the corrections and resubmit to the journal or try another one. When the paper is published it becomes public domain and is out there for interpretation if the person is genuinely interested in the work or they are quote mining to support a rigid picture (Clarke, 2008) In conclusion it is up to the scientist to prioritize their focus as to whether it is going to be on the discovery of how our natural world works and the excitement of it through communication or whether they would like the world to perceive them as in-fighting about the process used and hyping their work to get the attention of the public and investments. Our best bet is to continue to use peer review as our bedrock on which understanding can grow. The second tactic is to help in allowing the non-scientific setting to succeed.

Ethics as it References Balakumar, P. Murthy, S. & Jagadeesh, G. (2007) the basic concepts of scientific research and communication: (A Report on Preconference Workshop Held in Conjunction with the 40th Annual Conference of the Indian Pharmacological Society-2007) Indian Journal of Pharmacology, 39 (6), 303-305

Capri, Anthony PhD, Egger, Anne PhD (2009) Scientific Ethics Vision Learning Vol. POS- 2 (5) 2009 Retrieved July 9, 2011 from website http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer.php?mis=161 Clarke, Maxine Ethics of science communication on the web (2008) Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics Retrieved July 6, 2011 from websitehttp://www.intres.com/articles/esep2009/9/journalism/e009pp2.pdf

Hass, G. (2003) Restoring dignity to sound professional judgment Journal of Forestry, 101 (6), 38 Roland, M (2007) Publish and Perish European Molecular Biology Organization, 8 (5), 424-428