In our times, science has come under increasing pressure by fake news and politicians undermining the trust in scientific institutions. Hence, efforts are made to undermine scientific integrity from the outside. In such times, it is even more important than ever that the scientific community adheres to its high ethical standards and does not undermine scientific integrity from inside as well. The recognition of the importance of scientific integrity can also be seen at UiO by measures like the required ethical courses PhD students and employee in leading position need to take. Another example comes from own experience having obtained my PhD degree in Germany. To be even allowed to submit my thesis I had to provided evidence that I have no entries at all in my criminal record certificate issued by the police. This shows that a PhD comes along with high expectation by the society concerning the ethical standard such a person has. It is so high that at MatNat of UiO for Master theses a routine check for plagiarism is conducted upon submission, while for a PhD it is not.
Ethics in science spans a broad range of topics (see also the general guidelines in Norway) and for this post I will concentrate on an example more closely to my own work. Point 7 “Integrity” states “The researcher is responsible for the trustworthiness of his or her own research. Fabrication, falsification, plagiarism and similar serious violations of good academic practice are incommensurate with such trustworthiness.” Hence, repeated attempts of plagiarism including substantial parts are a clear violation of this point. Similarly, the fabrication of data even at a smaller scale are a breach of this point.
Points 11 “Availability of results” and 3 “Quality” state “As a main rule, research results should be made available. Openness regarding research findings is essential for ensuring verifiability, for returning some benefit to the research participants and society in general, and for ensuring a dialogue with the public. Such communication is also a function of democracy.” and “Research should be of high academic quality. The researcher and institution are required to possess the necessary competence, design relevant research questions, undertake suitable choices of methodology and ensure sound and appropriate project implementation in terms of data collection, data processing and safekeeping/storage of the material.”, respectively. One conclusion from this is that scientific evidence should not be destroyed but be shared. Hence, the destruction of physical voucher specimens and their digital representation can also be considered a breach of these ethical standards. This is especially true for researchers at a museum, which has the goal to preserve records of the natural history, at best forever.
Point 3 together with point 1 “Quest for truth” stating “Research activity is a quest for new knowledge, with critical and systematic verification and peer review. Honesty, openness, systematicness and documentation are fundamental preconditions for achieving this goal.” also entail that the research needs to be conducted at best of my knowledge ensuring that the analyses are conducted in the correct manner and are not based on false results. Hence, continuing with analyses in the knowledge of a high chance that analyses are faulty and erroneous is dishonest and not of high academic quality. Hence, given the knowledge basis and the seriousness of the errors this can also be regarded as a breach of scientific integrity if analyses have not been redone despite better knowledge.
If a researcher conducted all these breaches and additional ones in work ethics and laws, the questions arise who shall act on these breaches and what shall the consequences be. In the end, this will always be up to the institutions and the associated bodies and boards as they have the power to realize any decision with stronger consequences. However, putting the responsibility solely on the institutional side is essentially an avoidance strategy and a fig leaf to mollify our own conscience. We also have a personal responsibility to foster and uphold scientific integrity. This applies not only in our own work but also concerning the work of others and how we deal with this. Hence, we need to ask ourselves with good conscience how strong we regard the breaches of ethical standards. Are they substantial enough or not to stop collaborating with and supporting the researcher having conducted the breaches? These are the actions we can control by ourselves.
This is a very personal decision, but one should also consider the consequences of such a decision beyond one’s own personal (comfort) zone. The bar and lenience one applies to the ethical breaches of another person will also reflect upon one selves. If one is willing to accept the ethical breaches by another person, it is only a small step for others to assume that one applies the same ethical one’s own research and science in general. However, in the long run at too low ethical standard can undermine the trust the society puts into science and its ethical integrity. This can add a chink in our armor to be exploited by adversaries of science showcasing that science needs more control and should not be granted the freedom it enjoys. Especially in times like these, I therefore think it is off uttermost importance to remain strong scientific integrity and not to provide another chink in its armor to be exploited.
