Abstract
The paper addresses issues of scientific conduct regarding relations between science and the media, relations between scientists and journalists, and attitudes towards the public at large. In the large and increasing body of literature on scientific conduct and misconduct, these issues seem underexposed as ethical challenges. Consequently, individual scientists here tend to be left alone with problems and dilemmas, with no guidance for good conduct. Ideas are presented about how to make up for this omission. Using a practical, ethical approach, the paper attempts to identify ways scientists might deal with ethical public relations issues, guided by a norm or maxim of openness. Drawing on and rethinking the CUDOS codification of the scientific ethos, as it was worked out by Robert K. Merton in 1942, we propose that this, which is echoed in current codifications of norms for good scientific conduct, contains a tacit maxim of openness which may naturally be extended to cover the public relations of science. Discussing openness as access, accountability, transparency and receptiveness, the argumentation concentrates on the possible prevention of misconduct with respect to, on the one hand, sins of omission—withholding important information from the public—and, on the other hand, abuses of the authority of science in order to gain publicity. Statements from interviews with scientists are used to illustrate how scientists might view the relevance of the issues raised.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Together, the two series of interviews, which took place in 2005, encompassed 16 interviews with 18 scientists employed by public research institutions in eight European countries (Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain and the UK). Both series of interviews were conducted to support ethical reflection within the framework of European biotechnology projects. Thus, the interviewees can be considered picked at random with respect to the topic of the public relations norms of science. The interviews were semi-structured and took place in a conversational atmosphere. The interviewer took notes during the interviews and wrote interview reports which were checked by the interviewees (intersubjective validation). The interviewees were informed in writing that the interviews formed part of a wider research effort and that anonymised statements from the interview reports might be used in publications on the science-society relationship later on. The statements have been selected from the interview reports and anonymised to serve as illustration of the multitude of perspectives and points of view one may have to deal with in real-life encounters. Statements from 13 interviewees appear in the present paper. We take the statements as evidence only that some individual scientists are—or at least were in 2005—actually concerned about public relations issues. We do not, of course, take the statements in any way to serve as evidence with respect to how widespread such concerns or various attitudes may be, but we consider them useful sources of inspiration for the purpose of identifying basic assumptions, attitudes and issues that should be taken into consideration. The anonymised interview reports can be obtained from the authors.
References
Århus Amt, Aarhus Universitet Det Sundhedsvidenskabelige Fakultet & Det Etiske Råd. (1995). Pressemeddelelser. (Press releases in Danish in connection with a national conference on gene therapy organised by The County of Aarhus, The Faculty of Medicine at the University of Aarhus and The Danish Council of Ethics).
Association of Universities in the Netherlands. (2004). The Netherlands Code of Conduct for Scientific Practice: Principles of good scientific teaching and research. http://www.vsnu.nl/web/show/id=120790/langid=42. Accessed 21 September 2010.
Barcelona Biomedical Research Park. (2009). Code of good scientific practice. http://www.prbb.org/docs/cbpc.pdf or http://www.prbb.org/eng/part01/p06.htm. Accessed 20 September 2010.
Barnett, R. (2000). Realizing the university in an age of supercomplexity. Buckingham UK & Philadelphia PA: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Braxton, J. (Ed.). (1999). Perspectives on Scholarly Misconduct in the Sciences. Columbus OH: Ohio State University Press.
Butterfield, H. (1965). The origins of modern science. 1300–1800. London: G. Bell and Sons Ltd.
Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research. (2007). Code of good scientific practices in the relationships of the Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment with the health industry and/or other technology sponsors. http://www.gencat.cat/salut/depsan/units/aatrm/pdf/protocol-relacionsindustria2en.pdf. Accessed 20 September 2010.
Committee on Science, Engineering, Public Policy. (2009). On being a scientist: A guide to responsible conduct in research (3rd ed.). Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Engineering & Institute of Medicine of the National Academies.
Committee on the Ethics of Gene Therapy. (1992). Report of the Committee on the Ethics of Gene Therapy. Presented to Parliament by Command of Her Majesty. London: HSMO.
European Commission. (2007a). Integrating science in society issues in scientific research: Main findings of the study on the integration of science and Society issues in the Sixth Framework Programme. Brussels: European Commission.
European Commission. (2007b). Mid-term assessment. Science and society activities 2002–2006. Final Report 22 March 2007. EUR 22954. Brussels: European Commission Directorate-General for Research.
Faller, H. (2003). Schon in den nächsten Jahren werden in Deutschland grossflächig Wälder absterben. Die Zeit, 31.Dez. 2003, 47–48.
Folker, A. P., Holm, L., & Sandøe, P. (2009). We have to go where the money is: Dilemmas in the role of nutrition scientists: An interview study. Minerva, 47(2), 217–236.
Friedman, S. M., Dunwoody, S., & Rogers, C. L. (Eds.). (1986). Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news. New York & London: The Free Press.
Friedman, S. M., Dunwoody, S., & Rogers, C. L. (Eds.). (1999). Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science. Mahwah NJ & London UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Gibbons, M. (1999). Science’s new social contract with society. Nature, 402(supp), C81–C84.
Gilcher-Holtey, I. (2005). Die 68er Bewegung: Deutschland, Westeuropa, USA. München: Verlag C. H. Beck.
Hallin, D. C., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing media systems. Three models of media and politics. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
International Agency for Research on Cancer. (2008). IARC Code of good scientific practice. IARC Working Group Reports, Volume 4. http://www.iarc.fr/en/publications/pdfs-online/wrk/wrk4/IARC_Code.pdf. Accessed 21 September 2010.
Jones, A. (2003). Covering science and technology. An interview with Cornelia Dean. November 22, 2002. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 8(2), 3–11.
Macrina, F. L. (Ed.) (2005). Scientific integrity: Text and cases in responsible conduct of research (3rd ed.). Washington DC: ASM Press
Meijboom, F. L. B. (2008). Problems of trust: A question of trustworthiness. PhD dissertation. Utrecht: Utrecht University.
Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York: The Free Press.
Meyer, G. (2003). The wide open concept of openness. In P. Rainelli (Ed.), EurSafe, 4th Congress of the European Society for agricultural and food ethics: Ethics as a dimension of agrifood policy. Proceedings (pp. 103–107). Toulouse: EurSafe & INRA.
Meyer, G. (2005a). Making marketing difficult. The Pantaneto Forum, 20. http://www.pantaneto.co.uk/issue20/meyer.htm. Accessed 15 July 2010.
Meyer, G. (2005b). Why clone farm animals? Goals, motives, assumptions, values and concerns among European scientists working with cloning of farm animals. Project Report 8. Frederiksberg: The Danish Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment.
Meyer, G. (2005c). Principles for ethical deliberation in bio-scientific projects. Animal disease genomics: A case study. Project Report 10. Frederiksberg: Danish Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment.
Moore, P. (1993). Genetic manipulation. New Scientist Inside Science, 66, 1–4.
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science. Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge UK: Polity.
Pearce, F. (2010). Climate wars: Guardian special investigation. Guardian online, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/ipcc-report-author-data-openness. Accessed 15 July 2010.
Resnik, D. B. (1998). Ethical problems and dilemmas in the interaction between science and the media. http://www.physics.emich.edu/mthomsen/resn2.htm. Accessed 13 September 2010.
Resnik, D. B. (1999). Conflicts of interest in science. Perspectives on Science, 6(4), 381–408.
Schneider, S. (1996). Don’t bet all environmental changes will be beneficial. APS News Online, August/September 1996 Edition. http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199608/environmental.cfm. Accessed 15 July 2010.
Schudson, M. (1995). The power of news. Cambridge MA & London UK: Harvard University Press.
Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2009). Responsible conduct of research (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Shapin, S., & Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the air-pump. Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
Stehr, N. (1994). Knowledge societies. London & New Delhi: Sage Publications & Thousand Oaks.
The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty. (2009). Guidelines for Good Scientific Practice with special focus on health science, natural science, technical science. Copenhagen: Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation.
The Second World Conference on Research Integrity. (2010). Conference programme. http://www.wcri2010.org/programme.asp. Accessed 15 July 2010.
Williams, B. (1993). Ethics and the limits of philosophy. London: Fontana Press.
Ziman, J. (1978). Reliable knowledge. An exploration of the grounds for belief in science. Cambridge, New York & Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
Ziman, J. (2000). Real science: What it is, and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Hanne Andersen of the Department of Science Studies at Aarhus University, Geir Tveit of the Danish Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment and three anonymous reviewers for useful comments to earlier versions of this paper. Parts of the research behind this paper has been financially supported by two European Community FP6 projects: ‘Cloning in Public’ (Specific Support Action 514059) and ‘EADGENE’ (Network of Excellence FOOD-CT-2004-506416). Financial support has also been received from ‘Direktør Jacob Madsen og Hustru Olga Madsens Fond’.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Meyer, G., Sandøe, P. Going Public: Good Scientific Conduct. Sci Eng Ethics 18, 173–197 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-010-9247-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-010-9247-x