Integrity: codes, clubs and copying
There are some clear divisions emerging in the discussions this week. One question that gets people fired up is the issue of whether science should be a profession - similar to medicine or law - with a professional code of conduct, an accreditation body and most importantly the ability to kick misbehaving scientists out of the club.
Proponents of this view include Ray Spier from the University of Surrey and the editor of Science and Engineering Ethics. As he argued following a discussion about national and international codes of behaviour for scientists: a code of conduct without an institutional ``anchor`` would not be worth the paper its written on.
Others worry that a formal professional body does little to address the underlying cultural issues faced by science, where too little is done by too few to challenge misbehaviour. Brian Martinson of HealthPartners Research Foundation in Minneapolis is one who believes that integrity has to come from within the community rather than being
imposed externally.
The code of conduct recently proposed by the UK science advisor David King was held up at the meeting by Lida Anestidou from the US National Academies as a particularly bad example - its 7-point commandments form a do-and-dont checklist rather than formulating a guiding ethical princple or concept that would foster responsible behaviour.
Another conflict has emerged on the question of how serious plagiarism is, especially when related to the other two misconduct biggies: falsification and fabrication. These three travel together by the jaunty name of FFP. Although plagiarism seems to be one of the most prevalent misbehaviours some view self-plagiarism in particular as a ´´victimless´´ crime. What they argue is that plagiarism is a crime against other scientists whereas F&F harm science itself.
But others worry that tolerance of plagiarism - and a vice chancellor warns that it starts earlier and earlier with students in his university - encourages other questionable behaviour and slowly erodes the good practice of science. However, scientific norms vary widely across disciplines: why are six pages of plagiarism tolerated in some fields, whereas six paragraphs would be viewed as egregious in another? Christine Boesz, the inspector general for the US National Science Foundation and therefore reponsible for misconduct investigations in that agency, would like to know the answer to that one.
