Ethics and Political Philosophy of Science

19.11.2012
Ethics and Political
Philosophy of Science
Kristina Rolin 2012
Kuulustelut
Loppukuulustelu ke 28.11. klo 12.00-13.45.
Uusintakuulustelu pe 14.12. klo 12-16 Väinö
Linna –Sali (LINNA) historian ja filosofian
yleisenä tenttipäivänä. Muista ilmoittautua
ajoissa NettiOpsussa!
Kuulustelussa seitsemän kysymystä, joista
vastataan viiteen. Kukin kysymys
pisteytetään 0-3 (max. pistemäärä koko
kuulustelusta 15).
1
19.11.2012
Distribution of credit
Credit should be given when it is due (but not otherwise).
Violations of this norm include
Plagiarism, i.e. falsely presenting someone else’s
research plan, manuscript, article or text, or parts
thereof, as one’s own.
Honorary authorship, i.e. giving credit to a colleague
who has not contributed to the work. Guest author is a
person whose name is included in the authorship even
though she has not contributed to the work. Ghost
author is a person whose name is not included in the
authorship even though she has contributed to the work.
Anne Sayre: Rosalind Franklin & DNA
(1975)
2
19.11.2012
What is a discovery?
“Philosophers have traditionally conceived of discovery in terms
of internal cognitive acts. Close consideration of Rosalind
Franklin’s role in the discovery of the DNA double helix,
however, reveals some problems with this traditional
conception. This article argues that defining discovery in terms
of mental operations entails problematic conclusions and
excludes acts that should fall within the domain of discovery. It
proposes that discovery be expanded to include external acts
of making visible. Doing so allows for a reevaluation of
Franklin’s role in the discovery of the structure of DNA.”
Gibbons, Michelle. 2012. Reassessing discovery: Rosalind
Franklin, scientific visualization, and the structure of DNA.
Philosophy of Science 79 (1): 63-80.
Trust in science
Many beliefs scientists
accept are so called
second-hand beliefs, that
is, their epistemic
justification is based on the
assumption that other
scientists are trustworthy
testifiers. A scientist is
thought to be a trustworthy
testifier insofar as she has
certain virtues.
3
19.11.2012
What are intellectual virtues?
honesty
competence
conscientiousness
capability of epistemic self-assessment
Hardwig, John. 1991. The role of trust in knowledge.
Journal of Philosophy 88 (12), 693-708.
Honesty
Scientists should not fabricate, falsify, or
misrepresent data or results.
Fabrication refers to making up data;
Falsification refers to altering the data or
experimental results;
Misrepresentation refers to failing to report the
results truthfully. This includes trimming (failing to
report the results that do not support one’s
hypotheses), fudging (making the data seem
better than they are), and cooking (designing the
experiments so that only positive results will be
produced).
4
19.11.2012
Conscientiousness
Scientists should minimize errors in research, and
avoid self-deception, bias, and conflicts of interest.
Experimental errors, i.e. errors relating to the use
of instruments;
Methodological errors, i.e. errors in interpreting
and analyzing the data;
Human errors, i.e. (more elementary) errors made
in calculations, in using instruments, etc.
Freedom of inquiry
Scientists should be free to conduct research on
any problem or hypothesis as long as their
research does not violate justified moral principles.
They should be allowed to pursue new ideas and
criticize old ones.
5
19.11.2012
Science in democracy
The traditional social
contract for science:
Society provides money for
research (no strings
attached) and scientific
communities provide (at
least ideally) value-free
research for the society.
The ”politicization” of
science involves public
controversies over the role
of politics and values in
science and technology, and
the role of scientific experts
in public policy:
- return to the traditional
social contract; or
- increase lay participation
in science (to “democratize”
science).
6
19.11.2012
”Political” in science?
Science is neither essentially
apolitical (as the ideal of
value-free science assumes it
to be) nor essentially
political. Rather, like other
social activities, science
becomes political whenever it
is enrolled in relations of
conflict and power.
Brown, Mark B. 2009. Science
in democracy: Expertise,
institutions, and
representation. The MIT
Press.
Social responsibility
Scientists should avoid harming the society, and
attempt to produce social benefits, and they should be
responsible for the consequences of their research
(insofar as they can be anticipated).
Scientists should obey the laws pertaining to their
work.
Scientists should use resources efficiently.
Scientists should not violate rights or dignity when
using human subjects, and they should treat also nonhuman subjects with appropriate respect and care.
7
19.11.2012
The ethos of science
1.
2.
3.
4.
Public venues
Uptake of criticism
Public standards
Equality of intellectual authority
The four norms are epistemic values because they
facilitate transformative criticism that is part of the
epistemic justification of scientific knowledge.
Longino, Helen. 2002. The fate of knowledge. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
The problem of manufactured dissent
8
19.11.2012
Transparency, openness to criticism,
and respect
After research results have been published,
scientists should share their data and methods,
and allow other scientists to review their work
and criticize their ideas.
Scientists should treat their colleagues with
respect.
Equal opportunity
Scientists should not be unfairly denied the
opportunity to use scientific resources.
This norm can be defended by
General moral arguments (i.e. on the grounds that
people should not, in general, be unfairly denied
opportunities);
On grounds which are specific to science (for
example, on the grounds that people with different
backgrounds might generate useful epistemological
diversity).
9
19.11.2012
Equality plans
Since 1995 the Act on Equality Between Women
and Men (609/1986, amended 206/1995 and
232/2005) has required that universities and state
funding agencies for research, produce equality
plans every three years in order to prevent
discrimination on the basis of gender and promote
equality between women and men.
Finnish Advisory Board on Research
Integrity
2002 Hyvä tieteellinen käytäntö ja sen loukkausten
käsitteleminen (Good scientific practice and procedures for
handling misconduct and fraud in science):
http://www.tenk.fi/hyva_tieteellinen_kaytanto/Hyva_Tieteelline
n_FIN.pdf
2012 Hyvä tieteellinen käytäntö ja sen loukkausepäilyjen
käsitteleminen Suomessa:
http://www.tenk.fi/pdf/htk_ohje_verkko14112012.pdf
2009 Humanistisen, yhteiskuntatieteellisen ja
käyttäytymistieteellisen tutkimuksen eettiset periaatteet ja
ehdotus eettisen ennakkoarvioinnin järjestämiseksi:
http://www.tenk.fi/eettinen_ennakkoarviointi/eettisetperiaatte
et.pdf
10
19.11.2012
Good scientific practice means that
researchers…
1.
Follow modes of action endorsed by the research
community: integrity, meticulousness and accuracy in
conducting research, in recording and presenting
results, and in judging research and its results.
2.
Apply ethically sustainable data-collection, research
and evaluation methods (variation by research
discipline), and practice openness in publishing.
3.
Take due account of other researchers’ work and
achievements.
Furthermore….
4. Research is planned, conducted and reported according
to the standards set for scientific knowledge.
5. Questions relating to the status, rights, co-authorship,
liabilities and obligations of the research team are
determined before starting research and recruiting
researchers.
6. The sources of funding and other associations are made
known to those participating in research and to public.
7. Good administrative practice and good personnel and
financial management practices are followed.
11
19.11.2012
Responsibility for maintaining good
scientific practice….
First and foremost it is the responsibility of the
researcher him/herself but also:
• research team collectively
• supervisor as a research director
• head of research unit/organisation as a developer of
the working environment
• learned societies and journalists as mediators of
research data and as promoters of science
• funding organisations as research policy makers
Ihmistieteisiin luettavien
tutkimusalojen eettiset periaatteet:
1. Tutkittavien itsemääräämisoikeuden
kunnioittaminen
2. Vahingoittamisen välttäminen
3. Yksityisyys ja tietosuoja (suojattu Suomen
perustuslaissa)
12
19.11.2012
Tutkittavien itsemääräämisoikeus
Tutkimukseen osallistumisen tulee olla vapaaehtoista ja
perustua riittävään tietoon.
Alaikäisiä tutkittaessa on suositeltavaa hankkia myös
huoltajan lupa.
Poikettaessa tietoon perustuvan suostumuksen
periaatteesta tarvitaan aina tutkimuseettisen
toimikunnan ennakkoarviointilausunto.
Vahingoittamisen välttäminen
Tutkittavat määrittävät itse, missä kulkee
tutkimusaiheen arkaluonteisuuden raja.
Henkisten haittojen välttämiseen kuuluu tutkittavia
arvostava kohtelu ja tutkittavia kunnioittava
kirjoittamistapa.
Vahinkoa voidaan aiheuttaa myös julkaisemalla
tutkimuskohdetta leimaavia tuloksia, jotka eivät perustu
kattavaan aineistoon ja sen systemaattiseen analyysiin.
Vahinkoa puolestaan ei ole se, että tutkimustulokset
eivät ole tutkittaville kaikilta osin mieluisia.
13
19.11.2012
Eettinen ennakkoarviointi
Kirjallisuutta
Tutkijan eettiset valinnat, toim. Sakari Karjalainen,
Veikko Launis, Risto Pelkonen ja Juhani Pietarinen.
Helsinki: Gaudeamus, 2002.
Etiikkaa ihmistieteille, toim. Jaana Hallamaa,
Veikko Launis, Salla Lötjönen ja Irma Sorvali.
Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura, 2006.
Tutkijan ansioluettelomalli (2012):
http://www.tenk.fi/
14