Abstract
Drawing on 171 in-depth interviews with physicists at universities in the United States and the UK, this study examines the narratives of 48 physicists to explain the concept of ethical ambiguity: the border where legitimate and illegitimate conduct is blurred. Researchers generally assume that scientists agree on what constitutes both egregious and more routine forms of misconduct in science. The results of this study show that scientists perceive many scenarios as ethically gray, rather than black and white. Three orientations to ethical ambiguity are considered—altruism, inconsequential outcomes, and preserving the status quo—that allow possibly questionable behavior to persist unchallenged. Each discursive strategy is rationalized as promoting the collective interest of science rather than addressing what is ethically correct or incorrect. The results of this study suggest that ethics training in science should focus not only on fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism and more routine forms of misconduct, but also on strategies for resolving ethically ambiguous scenarios where appropriate action may not be clear.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Notes
We thank a reviewer for calling our attention to this literature. Our intention here is to highlight the relevance of these frameworks to the conceptualization of ethical ambiguity. The present study should in no way be understood as a test of these theories.
In a supplemental analysis we conducted for a cross-national survey unrelated to the present study, we were able to compare the NRC and WOS rankings of physics departments and found that the systems similarly classified the elite universities as among the top 25. Whereas the NRC analyzed 161 universities and the five non-elites in our sample fell among the 50 lowest ranked departments (or bottom 31 %), in the WoS analysis the five non-elites in our sample fell among the bottom 50 %. However, the result of our triangulation process in which in-country experts classified the physics departments as elite or non-elite resulted in a perfect consistency with how we ranked each department for the present study.
In 14 of the 15 departments in the UK sample, there was no ambiguity in the classification of departments as elite or non-elite. In the one case that was unclear, WoS ranked the department high as a result of publication productivity, there was disagreement among experts regarding the elite or non-elite status of the university, and the 2008 RAE ranked the department relatively low. In light of these latter two factors, and because the department in question had many faculty but WoS does not account for department size, we classified the department as non-elite.
UK41, February 25, 2014.
UK53, March 6, 2014.
US34, May 2, 2013.
US29, April 30, 2013.
US10, March 26, 2013.
US34, May 2, 2013.
US63, August 5, 2013.
US90, December 13, 2013.
UK66, April 22, 2014.
UK40, February 25, 2014.
US61, July 24, 2013.
US01, March 21, 2013.
UK73, May 1, 2014.
UK73, May 1, 2014.
US28, April 29, 2013.
US63, August 5, 2013.
US65, August 5, 2013.
US89, December 13, 2013.
UK16, September 30, 2013.
References
Alberts, B., Cicerone, R., Fienberg, S., Kamb, A., McNutt, M., Nerem, R., & Schekman, R. (2015). Self-correction in science at work. Science, 348(6242), 1420–1422.
Anderson, M., Shaw, M., Steneck, N., Konkle, E., & Kamata, T. (2013). Research integrity and misconduct in the academic profession. In M. B. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research. Dordrecht: Springer.
Basset, R. (2009). MIT Trained Swadeshis: MIT and Indian Nationalism, 1880–1947. Osiris, 24, 212–230.
Bouville, M. (2008). On using ethical theories to teach engineering ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14, 111–120.
Cadge, W., Ecklund, E., & Short, N. (2009). Constructions of religion and spirituality in the daily boundary work of pediatric physicians. Social Problems, 56, 702–721.
Chen, J. (2015). Virtue and the scientist: Using virtue ethics to examine science’s ethical and moral challenges. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21, 75–94.
Chubin, D. E. (1985). Research malpractice. BioScience, 35, 80–89.
Cohen, J. (2005). A word from the president: “Research integrity is job one.” AAMC reporter September. http://www.aamc.org/newsroom/reporter/sept05/word.htm
Cooney, M. (2009). Is killing wrong?: A study in pure sociology. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
De Vries, R., Anderson, M. S., & Martinson, B. C. (2006). Normal misbehavior: Scientists talk about the ethics of research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1(1), 43–50.
DiMaggio, P. (1997). Culture and cognition. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 263–287.
Durkheim, E. (1982) [1895]. The rules of the sociological method. New York: Free Press.
Ecklund, E. (2010). Science vs. religion: What scientists really think. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PloS One, 4(5), e5738.
Geuna, A., & Martin, B. (2003). University research evaluation and funding: An international comparison. Minerva, 41, 277–304.
Gordin, M. (2009). Points critical: Russia, Ireland, and science at the boundary. Osiris, 24, 99–119.
Han, H. (2015). Virtue ethics, positive psychology, and a new model of science and engineering ethics education. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21, 441–460.
Hermanowicz, J. (2009). Lives in science. How institutions affect academic careers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hobson-West, P. (2012). Ethical boundary-work in the animal research laboratory. Sociology, 46(4), 649–663.
Kovac, J. (2004). The ethical chemist: Professionalism and ethics in science. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Lamont, M., & Molnár, V. (2002). The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 21, 167–195.
Long, J.S., & Fox, M.F. (1995). Scientific careers: Universalism and particularism. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 45–71.
Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., Crain, A. L., & De Vries, R. (2006). Scientists' perceptions of organizational justice and self-reported misbehaviors. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1(1), 51–66.
Miller, D., Eagly, A., & Linn, M. (2014). Women’s representation in science predicts national gender-science stereotypes: Evidence from 66 nations. Journal of Educational Psychology. doi:10.1037/edu0000005.
Normile, D., Vogel, G., & Holden, C. (2005). Cloning researcher says work is flawed but claims results stand. Science, 310, 1886–1887.
Nyberg, D. (2008). The morality of everyday activities: Not the right, but the good thing to do. Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 587–598.
Ostriker, J. P., Kuh, C. V., & Voytuk, J. A. (2010). A data-based assessment of research-doctorate programs in the United States. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Owen-Smith, J., Riccaboni, M., Pammolli, F., & Powell, W. W. (2002). A comparison of US and European university-industry relations in the life sciences. Management Science, 48(1), 24–43.
Rebera, A., & Rafalowski, C. (2014). On the spot ethical decision-making in CBRN response. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20, 735–752.
Schmidt, J. (2014). Changing the paradigm for engineering ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20, 985–1010.
Schulz, W. G. (2008). A massive case of fraud. Chemical and Engineering News, 86(7), 37–38.
Scneider, Leonid. (2015). Too much to be nothing? Laborjournal, 3, 14–19.
Service, R. F. (2003). More of Bell Labs physicist’s papers retracted. Science, 299(5603), 31.
Wainwright, S. P., Williams, C., Michael, M., Farsides, B., & Cribb, A. (2006). Ethical boundary-work in the embryonic stem cell laboratory. Sociology of Health and Illness, 28(6), 732–748.
Zuckerman, H. (1988) The sociology of science. In N. Smelser (Ed.) Handbook of sociology (pp. 511–574). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Acknowledgments
The data for this analysis come from the ethics among physicists in Cross-National Perspective Study, funded by the National Science Foundation (Grant #1237737), Elaine Howard Ecklund PI, Kirstin R.W. Matthews and Steven Lewis, Co-PIs.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Johnson, D.R., Ecklund, E.H. Ethical Ambiguity in Science. Sci Eng Ethics 22, 989–1005 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9682-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9682-9