Most people learn ethical norms at home, at school, in church, or in other social settings. Although most people acquire their sense of right and wrong during childhood, moral development occurs throughout life and human beings pass through different stages of growth as they mature. Ethical norms are so ubiquitous that one might be tempted to regard them as simple commonsense.
I believe that every university should have a code of scientific ethics for its faculty staff.
For the professional growth and growth of science , ethics or scientific ethics are very important. Ethics are like character of a person. If character is lost , then every thing is lost.
Dear Saeed Al Rashid,
Research ethics - in modern science is a set of rules officially published, the violation of which leads to administrative proceedings.
The scientist must follow the principles of scientific ethics, to successfully engage in scientific research. In science as an ideal enshrines the principle that all are equal in the face of the researchers of the truth, that no, past achievements into account when it comes to scientific evidence. No less important principle of scientific ethos is the requirement of scientific honesty in presenting the results of the study. A scientist may be wrong, but has no right to falsify the results, it can repeat already made the discovery, but has no right to engage in plagiarism. Links as a condition of registration of scientific monographs and articles are designed to fix the authorship of certain ideas and scientific texts, and provide a clear selection already known in science and new results. There are elaborate rules about what conditions must meet the sponsors of the scientific article.
Everyone who is listed as an author should make a significant direct contribution to the intellectual work. For example, should contribute to the concept, design and / or the interpretation of results. "Honorary" co-author is prohibited. Provide funding, technical support, patients or materials, no matter how it was important for the work itself is not a sufficient contribution to the work, to become a co-author. Anyone who has made a significant contribution to the work, to be co-authored. Anyone who has made a less significant contribution to the work, should be listed in the list of people, which shall be made thanks to the end of the article.
Regards, Shafagat
Dear Saeed Al Rashid,
My response to your question another question: Can we answer trully to your question if lot of us are fearing to do it. Think a bit, and you will understand that your explanation under your question are utopistic…
Take a look onto my new article:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313632704_AZ_ELMELETI_TUDOMANY_KENYES_JELENSEGE
bstract and in comment (resume)
Best regards,
Laszlo
Best Regards,
Research AZ ELMÉLETI TUDOMÁNY KÉNYES JELENSÉGE
Dear S. Al Rashid,
May these links and articles fulfills good answer for your beautiful and important question.
Regards, Khaled
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/
https://www.google.com.sa/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj5odfF35LSAhVBbhQKHcFjC9sQFggpMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reference.com%2Fworld-view%2Fethics-important-research-6cbd391bbc85076&usg=AFQjCNF9MuEcDW4OFPFw3e6LLoz9bdHp8A
https://researchethics.ca/what-is-research-ethics/
https://www.enago.com/academy/importance-of-research-ethics/
https://explorable.com/ethics-in-research
Article What is Ethics in Research & Why Is It Important
Can there be any difference between the ethics of social life and scientific ethics? Would it not be enough to apply to scientific ethics the ethical criteria in society: honesty, modesty, truthfulness, recognition of the work of others, sincerity, respect, perseverance, admiration ...?
Dear Colleague, thank you very much , so Juan you are right there is difference for that I did asking this question
Colin , thank you for you abbreviation in simple points, Juan in General I agree with you
Dear Dr Rashid,
Ethics unfortunately is not learning or unlearning but following , compliance should not be a struggle .
As far as science/technology has evolved again it is based on conformity , learned while growing up so I guess to tell where/what/how we learned is natural ...
Dear All
I think the following good answer for raised question
What is Ethics in Research & Why is it Important?
by David B. Resnik, J.D., Ph.D.
The ideas and opinions expressed in this essay are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of the NIH, NIEHS, or US government.
When most people think of ethics (or morals), they think of rules for distinguishing between right and wrong, such as the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"), a code of professional conduct like the Hippocratic Oath ("First of all, do no harm"), a religious creed like the Ten Commandments ("Thou Shalt not kill..."), or a wise aphorisms like the sayings of Confucius. This is the most common way of defining "ethics": norms for conduct that distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable behavior.
Most people learn ethical norms at home, at school, in church, or in other social settings. Although most people acquire their sense of right and wrong during childhood, moral development occurs throughout life and human beings pass through different stages of growth as they mature. Ethical norms are so ubiquitous that one might be tempted to regard them as simple commonsense. On the other hand, if morality were nothing more than commonsense, then why are there so many ethical disputes and issues in our society?
One plausible explanation of these disagreements is that all people recognize some common ethical norms but interpret, apply, and balance them in different ways in light of their own values and life experiences. For example, two people could agree that murder is wrong but disagree about the morality of abortion because they have different understandings of what it means to be a human being.
Most societies also have legal rules that govern behavior, but ethical norms tend to be broader and more informal than laws. Although most societies use laws to enforce widely accepted moral standards and ethical and legal rules use similar concepts, ethics and law are not the same. An action may be legal but unethical or illegal but ethical. We can also use ethical concepts and principles to criticize, evaluate, propose, or interpret laws. Indeed, in the last century, many social reformers have urged citizens to disobey laws they regarded as immoral or unjust laws. Peaceful civil disobedience is an ethical way of protesting laws or expressing political viewpoints.
Another way of defining 'ethics' focuses on the disciplines that study standards of conduct, such as philosophy, theology, law, psychology, or sociology. For example, a "medical ethicist" is someone who studies ethical standards in medicine. One may also define ethics as a method, procedure, or perspective for deciding how to act and for analyzing complex problems and issues. For instance, in considering a complex issue like global warming, one may take an economic, ecological, political, or ethical perspective on the problem. While an economist might examine the cost and benefits of various policies related to global warming, an environmental ethicist could examine the ethical values and principles at stake.
Many different disciplines, institutions, and professions have standards for behavior that suit their particular aims and goals. These standards also help members of the discipline to coordinate their actions or activities and to establish the public's trust of the discipline. For instance, ethical standards govern conduct in medicine, law, engineering, and business. Ethical norms also serve the aims or goals of research and apply to people who conduct scientific research or other scholarly or creative activities. There is even a specialized discipline, research ethics, which studies these norms. See Glossary of Commonly Used Terms in Research Ethics.
There are several reasons why it is important to adhere to ethical norms in research. First, norms promote the aims of research, such as knowledge, truth, and avoidance of error. For example, prohibitions against fabricating, falsifying, or misrepresenting research data promote the truth and minimize error.
Second, since research often involves a great deal of cooperation and coordination among many different people in different disciplines and institutions, ethical standards promote the values that are essential to collaborative work, such as trust, accountability, mutual respect, and fairness. For example, many ethical norms in research, such as guidelines for authorship, copyright and patenting policies, data sharing policies, and confidentiality rules in peer review, are designed to protect intellectual property interests while encouraging collaboration. Most researchers want to receive credit for their contributions and do not want to have their ideas stolen or disclosed prematurely.
Third, many of the ethical norms help to ensure that researchers can be held accountable to the public. For instance, federal policies on research misconduct, conflicts of interest, the human subjects protections, and animal care and use are necessary in order to make sure that researchers who are funded by public money can be held accountable to the public.
Fourth, ethical norms in research also help to build public support for research. People are more likely to fund a research project if they can trust the quality and integrity of research.
Finally, many of the norms of research promote a variety of other important moral and social values, such as social responsibility, human rights, animal welfare, compliance with the law, and public health and safety. Ethical lapses in research can significantly harm human and animal subjects, students, and the public. For example, a researcher who fabricates data in a clinical trial may harm or even kill patients, and a researcher who fails to abide by regulations and guidelines relating to radiation or biological safety may jeopardize his health and safety or the health and safety of staff and students.
Regards,
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/
Yes I agree there is no difference, but the researcher must meet the ethical standards set by the scientific community and those of social ethics as these may not be as specific and rigorous for science.
Many thanks,
Debra
Dear colleagues , Debra , Hussein, Aparna and Pierlorenzo , Thank you very much
Research ethicists everywhere today are challenged by issues that reflect global concerns in other domains. Ethics are extremely important for setting boundaries in research for what science can and cannot do. These boundaries become important when safety, health and human involvement in science are considered. All scientific projects have to be weighed ethically in order to be checked for safety and approved for continuation. Research ethics involves the application of fundamental ethical principles to a variety of topics involving research, including scientific research.
There are three objectives in research ethics. The first and broadest objective is to protect human participants. The second objective is to ensure that research is conducted in a way that serves interests of individuals, groups and/or society as a whole. Finally, the third objective is to examine specific research activities and projects for their ethical soundness.
Dear Saeed,
By considering all the opinions of the colleagues and thanking you for sharing, in short, I'd say that before doing any research, for the sake of respect to others' right in research, one should learn the lesson of "loyalty"!
Regards, Faramarz
Moral values and ethical principles in scientific research are very important, the following are some of the reasons:
- Morality and ethics in people make them trustworthy, so what they say and do, is usually taken as an example of truth and behavior.
- Moral values and ethical principles are fundamental in people who are professionally dedicated to science and who generate new knowledge, the result of a research process.
- If scientific researchers in their professional work are authentic, honest and truthful, in describing their theoretical, conceptual, methodological and instrumental bases, the results obtained thus, will have high probability of being a source of new knowledge and technological innovations.
- Research carried out in a work environment where ethical values and principles predominate, when disseminated through publications, can be reproduced and validated by other researchers, in order to advance scientific knowledge based on truths so far verified and likely to be " Falsifiable "(Karl popper) to the passage of time, in order to purge the scientific knowledge accepted and applicable in a society.
- In the training of new researchers by research professors through teaching and example and practice in the actual research process, it is essential to carry out such training with ethical values and principles.
- Research carried out in human beings (biomedical, clinical, epidemiological and health systems) or in nonhuman beings (basic in animal models) has to be carried out under fundamental ethical principles accepted all over the world, which are summarized in the so-called " Good research practices "
Sincerely
Jose Luis
The following are links of publications related to research ethics involving human beings and the training of doctors and scientists.
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/.../Guidances/ucm073128.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51878986_Ethics_and_teaching_medicine_A_principles_declaration
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260592095_Evaluation_bioetica_de_los_esayos_clinicos_fase_III_en_farmacologia_clinica_Un_punto_de_vista_regulatorio
Los valores morales y los principios éticos en la investigación científica son muy importantes, las siguientes son algunas de las razones:
- La moral y la ética en las personas las torna dignas de confianza, por tanto lo que dicen y hacen, generalmente se toma como ejemplo de verdad y comportamiento.
- Los valores morales y principios éticos son fundamentales en las personas que se dedican profesionalmente a la ciencia y que generan nuevos conocimientos, resultado de un proceso de investigación.
- Si los investigadores científicos en su trabajo profesional son auténticos, honestos y veraces, al describir sus bases teóricas, conceptuales, metodológicas e instrumentales, los resultados obtenidos así, tendrán alta probabilidad de ser fuente de nuevos conocimientos e innovaciones tecnológicas.
- Una investigación realizada en un ambiente de trabajo donde predominan los valores y principios éticos, al difundirse mediante publicaciones, podrán ser reproducidas y validadas por otros investigadores, a fin de avanzar el conocimiento científico con base en verdades hasta el momento verificadas y susceptibles de ser "falsables" (Karl popper) al paso del tiempo, a fin de depurar los conocimientos científicos aceptados y aplicables en una sociedad.
- En la formación de nuevos investigadores por parte de profesores investigadores mediante la docencia y ejemplo y práctica en el proceso real de investigación, es fundamental se realice dicha formación con valores y principios éticos.
- La investigación realizada en seres humanos (biomédica, clínica, epidemiológica y sistemas de salud) o en seres no humanos (básica en modelos animales) se tiene que realizar bajo principios éticos fundamentales aceptados en todo el mundo, los cuales se compendian en las llamadas "Buenas prácticas de investigación"
Atentamente
José Luis
Los siguientes son vínculos de publicaciones relacionadas con la ética en investigación donde se involucran seres humanos y en la formación de médicos y científicos.
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/.../Guidances/ucm073128.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51878986_Ethics_and_teaching_medicine_A_principles_declaration
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260592095_Evaluacion_bioetica_de_los_ensayos_clinicos_fase_III_en_farmacologia_clinica_Un_punto_de_vista_regulatorio
Article [Ethics and teaching medicine. A principles declaration]
Article Evaluación bioética de los ensayos clínicos fase III en farm...
I believe that every university should have a code of scientific ethics for its faculty staff.
There is theory (e.g. the code, also assuming that the social environment is fully standardized) versus practice (e.g. taking social dynamics of daily life experiences into account)?
Science - a specific kind of human activity, the essence of which - a systematic research process aimed at the acquisition of knowledge, based on audited results. Ethics of science - it is a set of values, norms, rules of moral regulation in the scientific field. It covers two set of problems: the first is related to the regulation of relations within the scientific community, and the second - between the society in general and science.
Basic ethical principles of scientific activity that
are recognized by most scientists, the following:
a) the intrinsic value of truth;
b) focus on the novelty of scientific knowledge;
c) freedom of scientific creativity;
d) the openness of scientific results;
d) organized skepticism.
The principle of self-worth or truth universalism implies orientation researcher and research activities in the search for objective knowledge, rather than personal, group, corporate or national interests. Because of this principle should be one of the conditions of scientific activity - the exact observance of the rules for obtaining, selecting, processing and publication of data, operating in a particular scientific discipline.
Dear Saeed Al Rashid,
It is the best way to create the best technology. Without ethics, science will not nurture well.
Regards Naveen
Dear Friends,
My opinion is that: The sacred duty of each scientist or researcher is pursuit of absolute truth, which not-necessary imply only discovering the absolute Truth but also includes struggling to getting closer and closer to absolute Truth (until it is possible to discover the absolute Truth). In other words, if the science is a religion then the Truth is the God.
In the religion of science, there is no room for sacred untested beliefs or unquestionable opinions. It is morally and ethically wrong to defend untested beliefs as if they are sacred self-evident facts for eternity. Unfortunately, the BoK (Body of Knowledge) for computer science is rooted in many such sacred untested beliefs or software researchers have many unquestionable opinions.
Unfortunately, software researchers feel it is arrogant, disrespectful or heresy to question sacred beliefs, or if any one try to present counter-evidence that can expose the flawed beliefs (perceived to be sacred self-evident facts for eternity). How can you prove such disruptive discovery?
For example, how can you compel qualified researchers to investigate the evidence and accept the Truth? Assume that you know that you are right and you created multiple convincing proofs each is backed by evidence and reasoning. But is there any way you can compel any one to give enough time (e.g. between 6 to 8 hours), if they feel that it is a heresy.
I have been facing this kind of problem for many years. Anyone is free to find a flaw or counter evidence for my discoveries or facts, because I put all the evidence openly on the web. It is wrong and unethical to say I am wrong (or it is a scam), while refusing to investigate the evidence and facts. It is immoral and unethical for any researcher to blindly defend untested received beliefs (by ignoring clear counter evidence) that are at the root of any scientific discipline. How any discovery (that contradicts such sacred unquestionable beliefs) can ever be proved, if researchers feel it is heresy to dispute sacred untested beliefs.
Best Regards,
Raju
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_many_philosophers_argued_Kuhns_notion_of_incommensurability_does_not_exist_or_it_is_not_a_significant_problem
In European Union researchers should adhere to the recognised ethical practices and fundamental ethical principles appropriate to their discipline(s) as well as to ethical standards as documented in the different national, sectoral or institutional codes of ethics.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32005H0251
Scientific ethics is identical to other forms of ethics.
Ethics is in us . Not in beautiful statements......
@Saeed, “Why is important scientific ethics” and what is scientific ethics?, “Paroles paroles paroles” dear Saeed. Ethics is important if the system functions on a legal and ethical basis. If not ethics is a mean of control. Ethics is not important for the wealthy. Ethics is critical for the poor because ethics is their conception of life, a mean of existence. The wealthy do not care about ethics in sciences and they do not care about ethics, period. So, we are already in the age of individuality.
I could make reference to different sayings about ethics, I find intriguing the last ideas of Léon Tolstoï. “The most painful but also fruitful of Tolstoy's contradictions is the one between the aesthetic and the ethical." A year before his death, after producing all those doctrinal tracts, he confides to his diary "the desire to do some literary work, but a real desire -- not as before with a definite [moral] purpose, but without any purpose—or rather with an invisible purpose beyond my reach: to look into the human soul." Why?
The human soul defines what should be ethics in sciences, this soul is overloaded by the injustice and thus the moral conception has no sense when amorality is dominant. Why to be moral?
Dear Colleagues,
Good Day,
"Why are ethics important in research?
Safety is the basis of ethical research. If research is found to be not ethically sound, then it means that part of it was performed in a violent or detrimental way or that the results of the research could hurt the public, such as an unsafe new drug.
Ethics play a role in research for its entire life, from its first brainstorming to its administration out into the public or in writing. It is especially pertinent in the testing phases because this is when humans and animals come in, and safety and comfort must be taken into consideration. Unsafe testing methods, such as hurting the test subject or being unaware of the subject's limits, are one ethical issue. Lack of transparency in agreements surrounding the testing is another big ethical issue.
Basically, ethics in research keeps people safe and produces a product that is okay for the public to benefit from and consume."....
Please, see the link for more detail information.....
https://www.reference.com/world-view/ethics-important-research-6cbd391bbc85076#
Dear Mr Manzo,
I agree with you. But my point is, researchers must know code of conduct such as scientific method, nature of knowledge and context of the scientific facts or beliefs etc. For example, it is not violation of scientific method to rely on assumptions (or untested beliefs), as long as the researchers admit that the unproven beliefs are assumptions open for falsification. But it is wrong to impose beliefs or assumptions as unquestionable self-evident sacred facts.
Not knowing the law is never an excuse in case of serious violation of any law. Likewise, not knowing the rules (e.g. scientific process and methods) can’t be an excuse.
Dr. Doucas, made an interesting point: Ethics is critical for the poor because ethics is their conception of life, a mean of existence. The wealthy do not care about ethics in sciences and they do not care about ethics, period.
This same is true in case of scientific discipline. The influential and powerful use unethical means to supress the novel discoveries or inconvenient truths. Many cases it is not intentional, but ignorance of the code of conduct – But the result is supressing novel discoveries of not-yet influential researchers. Any theory must be judged based on its strength but not based on who proposed it or promoted it.
Dr. Kuhn observed in his famous book “Structure of Scientific Revolution” observed that:- "normal science" will often suppress novelties which undermine its foundations. Research is therefore not about discovering the unknown, but rather "a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education".
Usually, such novel discovery is made by unknown researcher, who is not yet indoctrinated into existing deeply entrenched paradigm. So, I feel, violation of code of conduct is unethical. Ignorance is not an excuse. Using power or prejudice to discredit novel discoveries is unethical. Unfortunately, in software many theories and beliefs are fiercely guarded not by using proof or evidence but by the reputation and influence or power of the researchers backing the known untested beliefs. I feel, it is unethical.
Best Regards,
Raju
Scientific ethics prevents abuses of ones over others. This is one of the reasons of its interest in the research.
It avoids to do the same thing by one another. It is important because we should not do the wrong thing.
With out scientific ethics, no research work. Then only this is most important.
How can you define ethical borders/frontiers when you don't know the system you start to study, e.g. as reflected in the future long-term consequences of scientific activities?
When we said scientific ethics it is a moral code of conduct with an Honest approach to give an environment very peaceful & with the source of inspiration to move to the correct path.
It is not necessary to place the ethics in the scientific line . It is not an approach of scientific attitude to offer to understanding of ethics !! . In our life we have to make & prepare for our action as it is relating to our day to day performance of our life & with this we can not get rid of ethics which also remains the source of inspiration of our mind & brain .
This is my personal opinion
Saeed,
I have only had dreams of this being considered commonsense. I think that you are correct that we develop this through our lives. I also think that one of the problems with the world is that people that grow up in a loving and caring situation without war all around them tend to mellow over time and others that are not in this good situation but in harsh situations tend to get deeply depressive in their ability to move beyond the hate and fear.
As a child I was under the impression that by the time I was old I would be telling my grand children about the times when wars happened but that they had been gone for decades. I see that there is little chance of this happening even in my great great grand children's lives. I hate no one, I love all.
This however does not mean that I don't see the way past this as I do. We must as a world of people have a common goal that it will take all of us working together to solve in order to save everyone. It can not be a goal that one or the other can fix by themselves but one to big to be done by just one society.
I had hoped for years that the global climate chance was the idea that everyone could understand and realize that it is not a political issue just a scientific number of people that eat breath, sleep, travel, use up resources, destroy forests, make lakes, pollute rivers, create toxins, and excrete billions of kilograms of materials ever day.
This is not going to do it, only because it is an excruciatingly slow process. Even if it were to take only a few decades people would get tired of it and give up in favor of fighting one another for excitement. It seems killing is in our DNA but I do not believe that. There is hope and we have to go after it.
We know that in a few billion years the earth will spiral into the sun. This has no chance of being the savior. However we also know that the chance of something hitting the planet is real and with the last few years we have realized that truly large objects are out there and may take us out. I am sure that no ones "God" has told them not to try and be fruitful and multiply or that the end is here so just let it happen. This is not the way we are made as people and regardless of our belief system we all want our children to survive.
This means that we must band together to at first be able to deflect anything that is going to hit the planet and then colonize everything that we can reach. The Moon, Mars, and then on to the nearest star systems. It is not a matter of if it will ever happen but just when it will happen. No one is safe from this killer, No one can hide and get away from the trouble, No one has a chance acting as a one person show.
It has to be our saving grace that we all have a brain large enough and creative enough to make this happen and survive past an inevitable END. We are smarter than this!
George Van Hoesen
Scientific ethics is the only benchmark of any research.
This is the driving force for coworker and new comer to get infused with the scientific group and start building it.
Dear colleagues, Saurav, George and Rohit, thank you very much
considering scientific activities as an activity aimed at obtaining and progress of knowledge through scientific methods, verbalizes generally accepted principles of conduct for scientists, a set of moral and ethical values inherent in research activities, as well as a kind of catalog of the actions of scientists who positively evaluated the moral heat view. Code of ethics of science is based on the rights and duties of researchers, internationally recognized, and the basic principles: the pursuit of knowledge and the search for truth; freedom of creativity; collegiality; accountability; justice and fairness.
Please also refer to the following papers, which have highlighted the importance (and the meaning) of ethics in research, and in our education:
- Kakabadse, N. K., Kakabadse, A. and Kouzmin, A. (2002) Ethical Considerations in Management Research: A 'Truth' Seeker's Guide International Journal of Value-Based Management, 15, 2, pp. 150-138.
- Mahony, P. (2009) Should 'ought' be taught? , Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 7, pp. 983-989.
- Munhall, P. L. (1988) Ethical considerations in qualitative research, Western Journal of Nursing Research, 10, 2, pp. 150-162.
- Ryan, T., G and Bisson, J. (2011) Can Ethics Be Taught? , International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2, 12, pp. 44-52.
Hello all, the value of scientific research is as important as other ethics in life follow. The ethics are important and are taught to have proper , pure way of life and so does the scientific ethics. We researchers do the work on animals and human beings and we must follow the rules for not doing any harm by either physical or mental. So it's very much important part n parcel of your research work.
Dear Colleagues,
Good Day,
Here is a very interesting presentation entitled "Research ethics & scientific misconduct", Please, see the link for detail....
http://www.slideshare.net/ghaiath/research-ethics-scientific-misconduct
Dear Friends,
Let me suggest couple of interesting perspectives of philosophy of science from the perspective of two of the greatest 20th century philosophers of science: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X8Xfl0JdTQ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZkrX5lMiks . These present how scientific methods or disciplines ought to be in a perfect world
On the other hand Dr. Kuhn articulates the state of the scientific disciplines, in this imperfect world we live. The essence is presented here: http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/kuhnsyn.html as synopsis. Knowing these three mistakes listed in the first paragraph allow us to minimize mistakes:
A scientific community cannot practice its trade without some set of received beliefs. These beliefs form the foundation of the "educational initiation that prepares and licenses the student for professional practice". The nature of the "rigorous and rigid" preparation helps ensure that the received beliefs are firmly fixed in the student's mind. (Mistake-1) Scientists take great pains to defend the assumption that scientists know what the world is like... (Mistake-2) To this end, "normal science" will often suppress novelties which undermine its foundations. (Mistake-3) Research is therefore not about discovering the unknown, but rather "a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education".
I feel that the sacred duty of scientific research and researchers is pursuit of absolute truth, including getting closer and closer to the absolute truth (if it is impossible to discover the Truth). Is it unethical or pure incompetence to repeating these kinds of well documented mistakes? Isn’t it is moral and ethical obligation of research community to investigate the truth? Isn’t it abdication of sacred duty to deliberately ignore or hide counter evidence?
Kindly forgive me for my harsh criticism of research community in general and software research in particular. I have been struggling for over a decade to demonstrate evidence that the “reuse centric CBSE paradigm is fundamentally flawed and it is in contradiction to the reality – this is 21st century alchemy (great idea but impossible to achieve)” by proposing the simple to achieve reality of CBSE/CBSD – eliminating the spaghetti code”.
If Google were available in the mid 16th century and anyone searches for questions such as “the Sun is at the center” or “which planet is at the center”, one could not have found even a single web page that confirming or proposing the fact “the Sun is at the center”, except may be the web pages related to the workd of Copernicus.
Today, I did the similar test by searching for many questions such as “what is the nature/reality of CBSE/CBSD/CBD” (it has 2*3=6 question), “CBSE/CBSD/CBD eliminating spaghetti code” (it has 3 questions, by using CBSE, CBSD or CBD) and “what is the essence/purpose of the CBSE/CBSE/CBD”.
The objective reality and essential purpose of CBD (for physical products) is eliminating the infamous spaghetti code or design. I could not find even a single web page that confirming the fact (eliminating spaghetti code or design), except web pages created by me or having my contributions.
I have created thousands of real-software-components and many CBSD applications to demonstrate that is possible to eliminate spaghetti code by discovering the essential properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical component and inventing equivalent real-software-components having the properties.
Unfortunately software researchers committing all the above three mistakes by employing unethical means such as personal attacks or insults. It may be not intentional, but is it ethical to be ignorant of “scientific method”? Not knowing ethical obligations or sacred duties is also unethical.
Saying the truth in the 16th century "the Sun is at the center" offended common sense and then deeply entrenched conventional wisdom. May be it is the first time they herd the Truth, but I spent 15 years to confirm the Truth, after I accidentally stumbled on to the Truth 16 years ago.
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Dear Colleagues,
Good Day,
Please, see
http://slideplayer.com/slide/2934229/
I think that the same ethics of our ordinary life could be applied to science as scientific ethics. Honesty can collect it all.
Regards
SM Najim
What is Scientific Ethics in Research and Why is it Important?
Think scientific research ethics include following examples which are not exhaustive list:
Scientific research ethics are important to serve as a governance measure to prohibit illegal research yielding unnecessary hazards, risks & costs to human civilization & values.
Dear Han Ping Fung, thank you very much for your comment
Dear Friends,
As a researcher each of us must pledge our allegiance to the Truth and sound reasoning, particularly to over come preconceived notions and prejudice in pursuit of the hidden truths.
One of the biggest hurdles to scientific or technological progress is preconceived notions and prejudice, which further complicated by egos, incompetence or arrogance.
Quotes by Arthur Schopenhauer
(Great 19th Century German Philosopher)
“The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively, not by the false appearance things present and which mislead into error, not directly by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by prejudice.”
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
“Thus, the task is not so much to see what no one yet has seen, but to think what nobody yet has thought about that which everybody sees.”
1. Research is to see what everybody else has seen, and think what nobody has thought.
2. Discovery (or Genius) is seeing what everyone else sees and thinking what no one else has thought.
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Scientific ethics is a moral and working code to live, function and produce results of science in the kingdom of science and utilize it in solving problems in the world. It is a learnt control of consciousness to be honest and responsible with absolute love for truth, on the use of results of scientific research, not to abuse it or to falsify it in order to cause damages, as we take science to be our intellectual method of solving problems, not creating one. Any learnt person of scientific skills, and knowledge, is a person of power and power should be controlled and be used properly in wisdom. The mix of power and foolishness is an ideal recipe for destruction.
The first moral orientation required for a scientist, is the installation of objectivity. Objectivity - that constantly attracts researchers, makes for a move, however, is steadily moving away. Objectivity is expressed in the desire to be impartial and to see studied the subject thoroughly, in integrity. Objectivity - the other face of justice. They both act as genuine virtues scientist. However, the scientific community, often fighting with each other, proving the theoretical inconsistency of the opponent while in the course are not moral agents, such as vain accusations, lies, slander, silence results from "opposing party", ignoring its successes, attributing different directions scientist practices of data manipulation. All this hampered understand the world as it is
In connection with all these important scientific virtue, along with the desire for objectivity, fairness is self-criticism, honesty (ie no withholding of research results from their colleagues), honesty (closely connected with objectivity and honesty, a genuine scientist will never usurp others' opening, that's why the biggest shame of plagiarism). Integrity of the modern scientist is manifested in his relationship with the creative research team. Major research and development works are not carried out these days by single, closed in the "ivory tower". Any more or less prolonged experiment involves tens or hundreds of people, their close-knit, well-organized, purposeful work.
The third important area of issues concerning science and morality, is the problem, on the one hand, the interaction between science and the neighboring areas of knowledge, and on the other - the interaction between theory and experimental area in the science itself, which is made going beyond theory - in life.
Dear Friends,
Does each researcher have moral or ethical obligation to address counter evidence to the theories or facts he/she is defending or promoting? I feel, pursuit of the absolute Truth is the sacred duty of each researcher. So I feel it is his/her ethical obligation to make sure he/she is not defending or promoting a flawed theory or fact by investigating any credible counter-evidence.
What are the moral and ethical obligations of any researcher, when credible counter-evidence is presented? Isn’t it unethical to deliberately ignore or hide from such counter-evidence? I have been perplexed by this dilemma for many years. I feel, it is unethical, but many researchers don’t seams to agree.
Best Regards,
Raju
I think that first of all we need to examine this issue from the point of view of ethics theories.
E.g, according to the theory of the relative subjectivism one wants to advances in science at any cost.
According to the theory of the social justice a scientific society must essentially help young scientists in their researches. But often we see that old professors try to use the scientific results of their young colleagues, in the best case, under the banner of co-authorship.
Dear Colleagues,
Good Day,
Please, see the attached link regarding "Ethics and Regulation of Clinical Research"
https://www.adturtle.biz/LP_TA/index.cfm?T=434140
I agree with @Juan Mata. However, it is noted that most humans do not perceive this way. If there is money and power involved in the processes, it tends to get worse. Unfortunately, human nature is still at that level, where it is not enough to have learned, from an early age, the difference between right and wrong, or between good and bad!
Best regards!
Adhere to basics of R&D with utmost sincerety and true to type is the essence of ethics.... Must be followed by all at levels.
Hello there,
Observing ethics in research by researchers is like having good principles and character for a human being. If you don't have one, you better not call yourself one.
Regards
Just put your original findings before the learned audience , no manipulation of data , try to publish true results of ones findings . Perhaps you may fail to publish in good impact factor journal at first instance but be brave and always stick to your original hypothesis. A time will come that every body will appriciate your findings and interpretations of data.
Dr . Rashid thanked me for my post , I wish him all the success in his future endevours .I just want to add that scientific ethnics are not very complex to define. Just be very true with findings , one is receiving with his/her research problems . Never try to manipulate even a single data in order to get your research paper published in a good journal , If any researcher follows a simple rule to present his/her findings as they were (without any thought of good impact factor journals) , that is the scientific ethic.Regards.
Dear Friends,
There are many forms of unethical behaviors researchers indulge. But the most insidious and under recognized (or least detectable) unethical behavior is deliberately ignoring or even hiding counter evidence, which can falsify the ideas or concepts they are supporting or promoting. Isn’t it unethical and abdication of moral obligations, if a researcher deliberately ignore or hide counter evidence, which can falsify the ideas or concepts he/she is supporting or promoting?
I have been struggling to provide counter evidence to many flawed myths that are in the very foundation of computer science and software engineering. I have been struggling for many years to expose such flawed myths, but software researchers have been deliberately ignoring such counter evidence. Why is it any different from manipulating the data or evidence?
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Colleagues,
Good Day,
Please, see the attached interesting presentation that entitled "Ethics of scientific research" , by Arjumand Warsy .....
https://www.slideshare.net/researchcenterm/ethics-of-scientific-research-rc-d-ec-2014-48532358
Every society is governed by its own culture (values and norms). There should be no right and wrong when it comes to different practices of culture in different societies. However, members of one society needs to work or collaborate with other members of different culture, the ethical issues come out. What values and norms should be applied?
Scientific ethics in research is all accepted principles that all researchers across different cultures must obey when they conduct a research. This is very essential due to the subjects we are researching in many cases are crossing one discipline (multi-disciplinary) or the researchers involved in a research are coming from different cultures of professions or the results of a research may be used by or have implications to different societies.
Misunderstandings and bad faith in science.
At the end of 2002, an event took place in world science that stirred up the scientific community and became the subject of discussion on pages of not only authoritative scientific, but also mass publications. On September 26, the New York Times reported on the results of an investigation of a special scientific commission appointed to verify the validity of experimental works published in leading scientific journals (Nature, Science, etc.) by the Bell Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey, Hendrik Sean. These works, in particular, dealing with the problem of creating transistors on individual molecules and superconductivity of fullerenes, attracted a lot of attention of many researchers. But for X. Sean it was difficult to keep up: in 2001 he gave the next scientific work on average every eight days. However, according to the commission's conclusion, many of its "remarkable" results turned out to be fraud and forgery.
It was a shock. And the headlines of some articles in the October issues of Nature directly testify to this: "REFLECTIONS ON FRAUDENCE IN SCIENCE. A thorough investigation revealed a significant contamination by researchers of physical literature. Such cases are difficult to prevent, but you need to try harder. "," THE CRUCIFICATION OF THE RISING STAR "," THE DETECTION OF SCIENTIFIC ILLEGALITY IS SHOCKED BY THE COMMUNITY OF PHYSICISTS "," PUBLISH AND WILL BE CURING ... "," WHO SHOULD SEE IN THE EDITOR'S CHECK? ". The newspaper Wall Street Journal accused the journals Nature and Science that in their competition for prestige and publicity they "smooth the corners" in order to get "hot" articles. Editorial boards of scientific journals rejected these charges.
This deplorable case once again marked the real problems that arise when reviewing and selecting articles for publication, in the distribution of grants and in general when assessing the activities of workers in science. Some aspects of these problems are addressed in a number of publications that followed the exposure of X. Sean (see, for example, Optical Engineering journals for November 2002, Nature, January 9 and 16, February 27, 2003, etc.). It should be recalled that the issues of scientific ethics and cases of its violations (misconduct) are always in the field of view of many English-language scientific publications.
http://www.trinitas.ru/rus/doc/0016/001b/00160111.htm
In the book by E. P. Kruglyakov "Scientists from the High Road" many examples of "scientific" charlatanism and parasitism on the authority of science are cited, an unambiguous assessment of which can hardly cause any serious doubts in the majority of normal scientists. However, this uniqueness is lost in some "borderline" situations, when the published results do not provide sufficient grounds for classifying them as "pseudoscience", but cause furious controversy in the scientific community, including the question of the admissibility of such publications on the pages of serious scientific publications. Two such publications were mentioned in 2002 in the journal Nature (24.10.2002), one of which (Science, 08.03.2002) reports on the observation of nuclear reactions initiated by acoustic cavitation in deuterated acetone. The authors of the article in Nature (24.10.2002) emphasize that in these two cases the researchers argue as to the validity of the conclusions of these publications by the experimental data obtained, and no assumptions about scientific bad faith are made in this case.
Great breakthrough discoveries in science do not happen very often, but the work of the scientific community continues uninterruptedly, remaining largely incomprehensible and of little interest to the general public and the media, usually oriented to any kind of sensation. Different approaches and criteria are used to evaluate the activity of scientists. A formal recognition of certain scientific achievements and merits is the award of academic degrees and titles, various awards and other awards. Among the formal indicators of scientific activity are such criteria as the number of publications and the citation index, i.e. The number of references to the work of this scientist in the scientific literature.
It is obvious that no formal procedures alone can ensure the complete objectivity of the assessment of the work and achievements of scientists, including the world-wide name, as is clearly evidenced by some known cases from past and present life of the scientific community, for example, non-selection by members of the Academy of Sciences A A. Vlasova, V. S. Letokhov. And others, another scandal surrounding the decision of the Nobel Committee - the last time in connection with the award of the Prize in Medicine and Physiology in 2003, etc. The results of the application of formal methods in this area turn out to be much more dependent on the interests and preferences of scientists than it is allowed by scientific standards in accordance with generally accepted norms. A very common "sin" of scientists is the "inflation" of the number of their own publications (see, for example, Nature, 16.01.2003). In contrast to this parameter, the citation index is more objective, but such a criterion is not free from a number of shortcomings (see, in particular, the publications in the Nezavisimaya Gazeta on June 26, 2002 and May 14, 2003).
In this regard, it is worth noting the fact that the mention in any article of a scientist with a world name is not always accompanied by the presence of an appropriate reference in the list of literature for his original works. For this reason, the index of "citation" of Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Schrödinger and other giants of world science is likely to be very low. This circumstance can also affect the citation index of our closer contemporaries, whose name is "attached" to the names of equations or physical effects (Vlasov's equations, Ginzburg-Landau equations, Cherenkov radiation, Josephson, Mossbauer effects, etc.).
The problem of adequate citation has a number of other aspects, including those relating to non-compliance with the norms of scientific ethics. One of the most, perhaps, famous cases of this kind is associated with the name of Einstein, who in his work of 1905 on the special theory of relativity simply did not refer to the works of his predecessors. At the same time in electronic and print media this name is untwisted so much that its repetition, most likely, surpasses in this field the citation index of all other scientists combined.
http://www.trinitas.ru/rus/doc/0016/001b/00160111.htm
In the life of modern science, inadequate citation also takes place, and such violations are not always accidental. It happens, for example, that the author of the work to some extent first cites his predecessors, but subsequently refers only to this work, thereby consciously keeping silent about his predecessors and often distorting the essence of the problem at issue.
In Russian journals, they are required to cite works only for the last 5 years, or articles only after 2000, and the number of citations should not exceed 15. This is not correct. There are generally accepted requirements for English-language journals. They are reasonable. This is not so important, since articles from Russian-language journals, unfortunately, in the world, practically, are not quoted (even English versions that have some journals, in biology and medicine I know one such journal). And this affects the impact factor that most Russian-language journals (biology and medicine) have zero or very low. English has conquered the world. So it happened. But is it right and just what happened? You can describe the scientific phenomenon (scientific discovery) in Russian-language journalse, and the world about this scientific phenomenon may not know for several years, or not know at all. I discovered and published the phenomenon ( (it is now devoted to thousands of articles with the world), described in an English-language journal (after) in 13 years. At the same time they did not refer to me, since my work (article) was not read.
Follow the correct path always is ethics for everyone and everythingj
Dear Pavel Franzevich Zabrodsky!
Not English is guilty and the scientist is to blame!!!
You are absolutely right in your remarks about approximately zero citations of English versions of articles in Russian. I think that this is not a linguistic or polytical problem but a very smart way of plagiarism! That is the Ethical Problem.
One of the most bright examples in the fileld of applied mathematics is Tikhonov Regularization (1943) which was "invented" after more than 20 years as the Ridge Regression.
Your remark does not concern the very famous dispute between Hooke and Newton.
It reflects (1) "naive" statement of the authors "I did not find and therefore I did not read" (2) low qualification of reviewers and (3) snobbism of many publishers.
The Information Age opens "super" possibilities to find everything and to translate from
any language to English.
Dear Colleagues,
Good Day,
" Ethics in Research
We are going through a time of profound change in our understanding of the ethics of applied social research. From the time immediately after World War II until the early 1990s, there was a gradually developing consensus about the key ethical principles that should underlie the research endeavor. Two marker events stand out (among many others) as symbolic of this consensus. The Nuremberg War Crimes Trial following World War II brought to public view the ways German scientists had used captive human subjects as subjects in oftentimes gruesome experiments. In the 1950s and 1960s, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study involved the withholding of known effective treatment for syphilis from African-American participants who were infected. Events like these forced the reexamination of ethical standards and the gradual development of a consensus that potential human subjects needed to be protected from being used as 'guinea pigs' in scientific research.
By the 1990s, the dynamics of the situation changed. Cancer patients and persons with AIDS fought publicly with the medical research establishment about the long time needed to get approval for and complete research into potential cures for fatal diseases. In many cases, it is the ethical assumptions of the previous thirty years that drive this 'go-slow' mentality. After all, we would rather risk denying treatment for a while until we achieve enough confidence in a treatment, rather than run the risk of harming innocent people (as in the Nuremberg and Tuskegee events). But now, those who were threatened with fatal illness were saying to the research establishment that they wanted to be test subjects, even under experimental conditions of considerable risk. You had several very vocal and articulate patient groups who wanted to be experimented on coming up against an ethical review system that was designed to protect them from being experimented on."......
Please, see the link for the rest of the article .......
https://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/ethics.php
Dear Joseph Dubrovkin,
Absolutely agree with you.
"Not English is guilty and the scientist is to blame !!!"
But you will agree that the German would like to see all the journals in German, the French in French, and the Russian in Russian (etc.). But it does not matter, you are right. I spoke about the peculiarities of Russian-language journals, and, notice, I did not praise them. Tried to make international language Esperanto, did not work, English - an international language. It happened historically (politically), and it's not bad.
Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Arabic are very complex to be international.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Ethics