Professional Documents
Culture Documents
• Moral reasoning
• Conflict of interest
• Human and animal subjects in research
• Record keeping/data management/ownership of data
• International research
• Authorship
• Investigating allegations of scientific misconduct
Science is built upon a foundation of
trust and honesty
If the consequences from your action turn out bad, did you act immorally?
Deontological ethics (rule-base ethics)
Some acts are intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of the consequences.
Rule-based (judgments are made by reference to rules and rule are based on
principles and community/scientific standards.)
Moral rules are binding regardless of the consequence (one must do what is
right, even if it does not result in the greatest good; the ends do not justify the
means)
Deontologists are generally constrained by prohibitions; thus, unintentional
breaking of the rules is not necessarily unethical. (if the standard is that
plagiarism is the intentional use of someone else’s work with out attribution
then negligent failure to cite the quoted work is not plagiarism).
Deontologist do not base ethical judgments on the consequence of the actions.
Strict religious or legal interpretations are deontological. There is one “right”
way.
In the case of Dr. X, the deontologists asks:
What is Dr. X’s duty in publishing his data and what is my duty now
that I know there are errors in the article?
Clearly, there is a duty to report the finding accurately.
But the deontologists needs to know whether the erroneous data was
reported deliberately or negligently.
If the data were deliberately misrepresented (and even if they are
not), then there may be a moral (legal?) obligation to report him or
see that an investigation is undertaken.
This view can be difficult to justify because the consequences of following the rules are
not considered.
This is particularly difficult if the rules are bad, immoral, unjust or impoverishing to
human life.
Casuistical ethics (evaluation by analogy)
•Compare to less complex, similar cases that are easier to evaluate and
have a clear moral resolution, i.e., casuistry.
•It analyzes particular moral problems by analogy to prior paradigm
cases (non controversial), rather than as unique isolated cases.
•Requires practical wisdom; an ability to understand when, and under
what circumstances and conditions the rules are relevant and should
apply.
•Can help decide whether something is ethical and also may give
guidance on what to do about it (report the plagiarizer or not)
In the case of Dr. X, the casuistical approach asks:
What are the prototype cases that provide the boundaries for
assessing Dr. X’s erroneous publication? Is it more like a cases of
deliberate falsification for personal gain or more like a case of
negligent oversight?
If the former, it is unethical. If the later it may be excusable and
not considered wrongdoing.
Information about Dr. X’s motives are needed to determine which
case is most similar.
Criticized for results that are unprincipled and discretionary (arbitrary).
Virtue ethics
Focus on the character and moral qualities of the players. What is their
history, character, motives, intentions. Do the player have the habit or
disposition to act morally and do what is right? There is less concern with
rules, standards and outcome.
However, rules and outcome will reflect on the character and
virtuousness of the player.
Virtue ethics can be important where there is a clear violation of ethics or
standards. Virtue ethics may be most important in determining
consequences in cases of misconduct. (is this a person who made a
mistake or is there a pattern or wrongdoing from a person that lacks virtue
and good character?)
In the case of Dr. X. the virtue ethics approach asks:
What is Dr. X’s moral character? Are there other instances with
questionable conduct?
If I approach him, will he deal honestly or cover up misdeeds?
If I tell other, will it damage his character or my character?
What are my motives? To see justice or might I gain something from
damaging his reputation?