Ethics in Scientific Research, and Ethical Scientists

Science is the systematic study of or investigation into natural phenomena that occur in everyday life. Its application is usually made through experimentation conducted by qualified persons who make use of the scientific method. This involves formulating an hypothesis, conducting experiments to test the hypothesis, and drawing conclusions based on the results that either confirm, modify, or reject the hypothesis. In essence, science is generally associated with facts derived from experiments.

Science is important to our everyday lives; i.e., the food we eat, the medicines we take, the vehicles we drive, the bridges we cross, etc., all are based on using sound scientific investigations to determine what their components or dosages or physical attributes should be to support safe everyday consumption and/or use. According to Stephen Buranyi (The hi-tech war on science fraud, The Guardian, Feb. 2017), the claim that science has on truth relies on the belief that its methods and procedures are purely rational and objective.

Sound science is organized investigations and observations conducted by qualified personnel using documented methods that will lead to verifiable results and conclusions. Sound science ensures that what we know results from data-driven results and observations. Without all of those characteristics, the investigations are unlikely to produce reliable and reproducible results.

The scientific method is used to conduct sound science so that derived data are valid. This implies that science practitioners formulate a testable hypothesis, use systematic and well-documented experimental and analytical procedures, apply accepted, proven, and appropriate data analysis tools, and present conclusions that address the hypothesis and are supported by the experimental results. Use and application of the scientific method ensures that a scientific endeavor is sound in its approach, and that the reported results and conclusions from the endeavor are supported by the obtained data.

Scientists of all disciplines are expected to adhere to the strict principles of the scientific method. This means that they are to use only documented, accepted methods and procedures and are to avoid injecting personal views or preconceived notions into the interpretation of data that result from their investigations. According to Stephen Buranyi (The hi-tech war on science fraud, The Guardian, Feb. 2017), “...science is a discipline that relies mainly on a culture of mutual trust and good faith to stay clean. And so the enormous task of keeping science honest is left to individual scientists in the hope that they will police themselves, and each other”. Thus, “for agriculture to meet the world’s food demand, society has to be comfortable with the science and technology being deployed in the field” (Gregg Hillyer, The Progressive Farmer, Winter Issue 2018, p. 4). That means that every scientist is responsible for the integrity of their research conduct so that malfeasance such as that cited here does not occur.

Results from scientific investigations should be published in reputable peer-reviewed journals, where the methods, statistical analysis procedures, and conclusions are reviewed by other scientists in the discipline who can confirm that those methods and procedures are in fact valid for the research endeavor outlined in the written presentation. This peer review process is the backbone for validating experimental results, but it does depend on the integrity of the scientist presenting the article for review; i.e., the peer review process assumes that the investigation and derived results being reviewed are in fact the result of a real vs. concocted investigation. Again, the burden is on the scientist to present a truthful representation of what was done, how it was done, and what the results are based on collected data.

Agricultural Scientists are in a unique position compared to scientists who work on issues pertaining to human subjects; i.e., their subjects (plants and animals) cannot verbally communicate to them about whether or not a “prescribed” input or technology did in fact perform as predicted by their research results. So they can publish papers with those research results, and if/when those results applied to the subject do not provide the intended or expected outcomes, they can cite weather vagaries or other uncontrolled factors and the subject plant or animal cannot dispute or contradict those explanations. Thus, the burden is on the agricultural scientist to ensure that the information they convey to the public is factual, truthful, and data-driven so that when those results are applied to the intended subject they will produce the predicted result(s) barring some uncontrolled event or factor that can be documented.

Scientists who conduct experiments/investigations can comment freely on the significance of their work and its findings beyond the scope of their own studies, but they must be careful to distinguish this speculation from the conclusions that are based on the actual data. Also, they can identify overall trends in the data that are supported by their findings, but again, they must identify that these trends are only surmised from their results and may not always occur or be obvious when the results are applied in other settings.

Often, non-scientists who are determined to promote a particular cause or view may confuse or portray (often deliberately) association or correlation with causation (correlation means that two events or findings occur in consort, while causation means that one event actually causes the other event to be affected). Therefore, it is the publishing scientist’s responsibility to ensure that this misinterpretation is not easily made from their presentation; e.g., the scientist should strongly state that a found correlation between two or more factors in an experiment should not be misconstrued as one or more of the factors causing a reaction in the other factor or factors.

According to Dr. Henry J. Miller (Scientifically Illiterate America, Hoover Institution, Nov. 2017), “the beauty of the scientific method, when done right, is that it protects us from ideology and bias, and helps us understand what is true and what really works. At its best, science can inform sound public policy. But when we ignore or misinterpret science, we move backwards toward a time when irrationality and superstition prevailed.” In today’s agricultural sector, those ignoring results from sound science are actually moving society toward a potential lessening of the quantity and quality of our food supply.

An earlier post on this website titled “Ethics in Presenting Information” provides important points for scientists to consider when they present results from their experimental endeavors. Too often, results from well-conducted experiments or series of experiments are so poorly presented (or worse, are not presented at all) that the end-user is left with an unclear picture of just what was accomplished or having to decide for themselves just what the results mean and how they can be applied. In some cases, results may be ignored completely or downplayed because the writer has not conveyed a clear description of how they were obtained or how they can be applied by the end-user. Thus, this component of science is just as important as the actual conduct of the experiment.

According to poll results reported in “Americans’ attitudes about science in 2017: high confidence, low visibility” (Research America, Jan. 2018), more than half of Americans agree that scientists should play a major role in shaping public policy in many areas, and a large majority of Americans consider scientists trustworthy spokespersons for science. However, scientists and the nation’s scientific enterprise remain largely invisible to the public at large. Thus scientists, especially in the agricultural sector where the components of foods and feeds are being so hotly debated, must strive to become more engaged with the public so that results from their research are accurately disseminated.

PostScript

As with all writings, this one uses some terms and phrases that should be described so the reader knows just what is meant by those terms and phrases. An article titled “Sound Science” (Society of Env. Toxicology and Chemistry–Technical Issue Paper, 1999) presents what I think are some accurate definitions of some of the terms and phrases used in the above narrative.

•    “Conducted by qualified personnel means that the investigators have acquired the necessary expertise, either by formal training or by on-the-job experience, to use descriptive and analytical tools appropriately to design studies that can rule out false or alternative hypotheses, and to communicate the results accurately.” The term “Qualified personnel” does not mean that academic or professional credentials are either necessary or adequate to ensure that sound research is conducted. In other words, just having a “Ph.D” after one’s name does not automatically ascribe scientific competence to that person.

•    “Documented methods enable the original researchers and others to reproduce the results using the same techniques...to check for possible errors” or biases in the observations or measurements. Documented methods are a necessary component of any research endeavor that will allow the resulting data to be validated during the peer-review process.

•    “Leading to verifiable results and conclusions means that the conclusions are directly supported by the experimental results and can be independently validated by others...using the same or other methods.”

Composed by Larry G. Heatherly, Jan. 2018, larryheatherly@bellsouth.net