4.27 Intellectual
To learn without thinking is to be reckless, and to think without learning is to perish | Image source: pixabay.com
Editor's Note
In March 1989, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) established the first Office of Research Integrity and introduced the first training program for responsible research practices. Since the 1980s, research ethics has become a public issue in the United States and around the world. More than 20 years later, in September 2008, Zhang Yuehong learned that the annual Global Publishing Innovation Award had been awarded the "Cross Check Project for Screening Plagiarism", and in October, the Journal of Zhejiang University (English edition) became CrossCheck's first Chinese member. The following year, the journal became the first Chinese member of the Global Publishing Ethics Committee (COPE, established in 1997). Zhang Yuehong laughed and said that she is at the forefront of scientific research integrity and scientific research ethics in China, but there is obviously still a big gap with the development of the world. This is her insight of "living to be old and learning to be old", which is worth sharing with her colleagues.
Written by | Zhang Yuehong (Former Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Zhejiang University, Head of BDM)
Editor-in-charge | Dilly will
● ● ●
At the beginning of the year, I received the third package of books on scientific research integrity and ethics mailed by an American professor and journal editor, and several of them were coveted and loved.
Perhaps originally trying to solve the mystery of "values", but unexpectedly, scientific research ethics, integrity and values, you have me, I have you, I read three books (see Figure 1). I am also concerned about the "Opinions on Strengthening the Ethical Governance of Science and Technology" recently issued by the CPC Central Committee and the State Council, which emphasizes the establishment of value concepts and ethics first, which has aroused discussions from all walks of life, which has aroused my interest.
Figure 1: The National Academy of Sciences: Integrity in scientific research—creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct. National Academia Press, 2010 Research Integrity: Creating an Environment for Responsible Research Practices; Judi Sture, The Ethics and Biosecurity Toolkit for Scientists" World Scientific, 2017. Robert T. Pennock, An Instinct for Truth: Curiosity and the Moral Character of Science. The MIT Press, 2019. The Instinct for Truth: Curiosity and Scientific Virtue.
Round table with vase
What is the relationship between integrity, ethics and values? Here I would like to share a small episode.
In 2018, during a tea break at the 6th World Congress on Integrity in Research, I was talking to a philosophy professor from Germany and asked her what is the relationship between integrity and ethics. After a little thought, she pointed to the round table and the vase in front of us, and taught me a lesson in space about the relationship between integrity and ethics and values.
Here combined with my understanding in the schematic interpretation as follows:
The small circle (representing the vase on the table) means that the industry engaged in scientific research activities has a "good faith" responsibility. Its characteristics are the "self-discipline" of the individual, that is, the person who comes before and after must be honest.
The Great Circle (representing the Grand Round Table) represents (all walks of life) have ethical norms. Its characteristics are focused on the "external law" norms of society. That is, there are ethical norms in all trades, and the professional behavior that restricts members means ethics, which is a sensitive issue of principle for the rights of others.
Values are based on the ideals and beliefs of integrity (self-discipline) and ethics (external law), and are willing to gamble with their lives.
Figure 2 Relationship diagram of integrity/ethics/values
These three original works have incisive and detailed discussions on the concepts and categories of scientific integrity, scientific research ethics and scientific values, which are summarized and quoted below-
1 Scientific research integrity: the first is the commitment to intellectual honesty, as well as the practice of individual behavior and a series of responsible research behaviors, with the purpose of ensuring the objectivity and reproducibility of knowledge information, avoiding prejudice, fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and inappropriate interference.
2 Scientific research ethics: refers to a series of sensitive issues of principle to the rights of others raised by human beings as research objects or participants.
It has three objectives: to protect human participants; to ensure that research is conducted in a manner that serves the interests of individuals, groups, or society as a whole; and to review issues such as ethical soundness, risk management, confidentiality, and protection and informed consent of research activities.
For the most part, research ethics has traditionally focused on issues in biomedical research. The research and application of biomedical ethics has been well developed in the last century, and many regulations and guidelines on the study of ethical behavior have been introduced.
However, with the development of scientific research in human society, various new ethical issues continue to emerge, such as the ethics of artificial intelligence, which raise new ethical questions and obligations.
3 Scientific Values: Science has only one principle, which is to prove the truth. This belief energizes every scientist in this mission. Science cannot resolve conscience and transcend proveable values and compassion, or it can only satisfy and hinder them. And social and moral empowerment of science to prove truth is the moral compass of the scientific profession, the core values.
Role models
I previously read a document in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences since February 2022 [1] and learned that Professor Pennock is leading the "The Scientific Virtues Project (SVP)". I searched for some of his articles and forum speeches over the years and learned that he had followed up with nearly 500 elite scientists, including members of the National Academy of Sciences, Nobel Laureates, and young talents who had received honors in the discipline.
Its findings show that the top five core values held by scientists themselves are-
Honesty Honesty (64%);
Curiosity (60%);
Perseverance perseverance (34%);
Objectivity Objectivity (21%);
Humility to evidence is humble to evidence (19%) [or the willingness to reject hypotheses that do not fit the data.]
The above results are also evident in the curiosity of the SVP team during the interview, and they do want to know:
What qualities do scientists value most from each other? What kind of values make up to guide scientific practice? What qualities and virtues should scientists pursue? How are these proven, reinforced, and acquired in the scientific community?
How can I better deliver it to science students?
Later, in the preface to The Instinct of Truth: Curiosity and Scientific Virtue, he specifically explained that the SVP project was the first systematic survey of defining the values of scientists since Robert Merton pioneered the idea that the scientific system was based on correct ethical values.
"The discussion of mentors as role models in our interviews was lively, with respondents saying that they saw these qualities in their most respected mentors and colleagues and gave their efforts a purpose. It makes sense to know that this set of values is indeed accepted by scientists, it suggests how we should teach and guide science, and it can also help us better understand the cases of scientific integrity collapse and what can be done to support the ethical culture of the scientific profession. Pennock wrote.
I found that Professor Pennock emphasized in several articles —
"Science as a profession dedicated to discovering and understanding the truths of the natural world is based on a set of core values that illustrate that science has a moral core that may quietly guide them silently. This virtue-based view of education may have a greater impact on responsible research practices (RCRs), especially in international scientific collaborations that share a culture of scientific ethics. ”
I also agree with his other point of view, that is, is it better to focus on scientific values in scientific research and education than to strictly emphasize the effectiveness of abiding by the norms of the system. This is worth exploring by scientific research institutions.
More importantly, from this project, we have a clear understanding of the core values of scientists in their quest for the truth of the world, led by honesty and curiosity. I also feel that the word "role model" that we have been indifferent to for many years is alive again, and I know that it has been "silently" influencing and guiding generations of scientific people, right?
What do scientists think about ethics and trust?
In a 2021 Scientific American editor's note for the 4th issue of The Ethics of Science, scientifically informed that "from computers and vaccines to clean energy, advances in science have brought huge improvements to everyday life." But science itself is an evolving work and still has great potential in a more equitable, ethical and diverse community need."
The album includes an article by Professor Pennock titled "Scientists Reflect about Ethics and Trust".
"Scientists' own views on trust and ethics are rarely reported, and with funding from several grants such as national science, the team has conducted more than 500 hours of interviews with scientists, with nearly thousands of pages of searches for the word 'trust', with more than 100 pages of material." The scientists who mentioned the word trust came from different fields and backgrounds, but their answers suggested that they shared a common spiritual temperament. ”
Reviewing these feedbacks allows for an infographic of the ETHICS ethical model [3]. My translation of the 7 words in its infographic is as follows :
Curiosity: The vast majority of scientists don't have a schedule, they really just want to understand the world.
Skepticism: Benign skepticism is necessary. Don't fully trust your results until you've been fully scrutinized by yourself and others.
Integrity: If the public starts to think that scientists are only for our own progress, our society will be in a dark place. This would diminish the advantage of the best tools humans have developed to understand the world around us and improve our place in it (note the feedback definition of "integrity" is the most intriguing philosophical explanation I've seen today).
Betrayal: Scientists feel betrayed when someone cuts corners for the sake of their career or out of laziness.
Honesty: You have to be honest with your own data, and you have to be honest with other people's data. If you are not honest, the whole system will crash.
Trust: If you don't trust the professor, your collaborators, and others in the field, you'll get nothing. A balance must be struck between trust and doubt. Evidence: Intuition and insight are important, but ultimately the only thing that matters is evidence.
Indeed, although the author did not prompt, readers have seen from the infographic of the article that 7 English word prefixes to combine, can really be combined into the word ETHICS.
Although I did not ask the author, it can really be interpreted as having ironclad evidence of Evidence; trusting Trust; and honesty and integrity Integrity can indeed express the essence of the curious Curiosity and Skepticism questioning scientists vividly and delicately, so I further understand the philosophical meaning of the definition of the word integrity in this illustration.
The dilemma of scientific research ethics
Previously mentioned in the definition of ethics, from the traditional point of view, scientific research ethics mostly involve problems in the field of biomedicine, but with the development of science and technology, ethical research has involved a number of professional fields, such as the ethics of artificial intelligence is a hot spot at present.
Dr. Sture, author of The Ethics and Biosafety Toolkit for Scientists, has been working on research ethics for more than 20 years. In the book, she provides scientists with two toolsheets for ethics and biosecurity: The Ethics Toolkit 1: Ethics as Other People's Rights and The Ethics Toolkit 2: Ethics as Your Responsibilities to Others.
At the same time, she repeatedly stressed that "we cannot shirk our responsibilities, as can the public, fund funders, journal editors and others." Even new hires will soon need to know these responsibilities. Given the progress we have made and the potential we are now manipulating our lives, the nature and scope of our work being abused must be considered."
Here, with her permission, two intuitive illustrations of the connotation and extension of ethics are presented to help us understand the author's incisive definition of ethics, that is, "ethics is a sensitive issue to the principles of the rights of others"——
The Ripple Effect of Ethics: Where would you put the behavior of each group of people after you? When and where will its ripple effects end? This diagram is the best interpretation of the ethical definition and categories in this book.
Figure 3
Ethical Continuum (Obligations & Purposes): Which Path Will You Take?
Figure 4
This diagram reflects the two concepts of public ethics, namely the ethics of obligation and the ethics of purpose, which can be seen from the figures with their retrograde characteristics.
We can't help but ask, where is the best place for scientific research ethics?
The author does give an unusual example, the German physician Forsmann successfully made his first cardiac catheter in 1929 and published an article in the same year that earned him the Nobel Prize in 1956. But his experimental behavior was fraught with ethical issues, first he did not get the consent of the supervisor, and then he "coerced" the nurse to help him experiment and obtain R-Ray images, although he was forced to leave the hospital for this reason, but his success did bring good news to mankind.
This has also become a typical case of medical ethics. When he received the call to win the award, he said with humor or mixed feelings, "I feel like a village priest who has just learned of being ordained as a bishop." Yes, all these years, he may have been judged by ethicists.
At the same time, this case also reminds me of the gene editing incident a few years ago, and there are some different voices in the American academic community, which are worth thinking about.
Top 10 Ethical Questions in Science
This spring, the two offices issued the "Opinions on Strengthening the Governance of Science and Technology Ethics", especially in the field of science and technology, scientific research ethics has become one of the most heated topics in the industry.
This reminds me of a recent report on the ten ethical confusions of science today [3], which may be translated as follows:
Ethical Question 1: Should We Stop Scientific Research? Scientific research may bring benefits and progress, but they seem to go hand in hand with death and destruction. Should we back off when science is ahead? Ethical Question 2: Should We Do Geoengineering? We only have one Earth, and how far should we go in order not to let it be harmed by humans? Ethical Question 3: Should We Control The Population? Our children and grandchildren may inherit an overcrowded, suffocating planet. Taking action could mean that the taboos of the past will become common sense today. Ethical Question 4: Should We Colonize Other Planets? As more and more potentially habitable exoplanets are discovered, it's time to ask ourselves: Do we have the right to take over another world? Ethical Question 5: Should We Give Other Animal Rights? Minimizing suffering in other life forms is a commendable goal – but also with human well-being in mind. Ethical Question 6: Should We Genetically Edit Our Children? For most people, it is acceptable for most people to prevent their children from dying prematurely due to genetic diseases through gene editing, but we need to ask ourselves how far should we go? Ethical Question 7: Should We Make Everyone "Normal"? Society could be happier and safer if more people thought and acted in the same way, but what is the cost of doing so? Ethical Question 8: Should We Give Up Online Privacy? The debate between online privacy and national security has reached a fever pitch. The end result depends on what kind of Faustian ideal deal we are willing to make? Ethical Question 9: Should we give robots the right to kill? Robot soldiers who obey orders and are not influenced by human emotions may reduce casualties in conflict, but who will be held accountable for their actions?
Ethical Question 10: Should we open the door to artificial organisms? New life forms may help address issues ranging from famine to global warming, but releasing them raises biosecurity concerns.
Final words
With the development of science and technology, modern ethics has become an ever-changing and constantly updated discipline, of course, ethics is also one of the oldest disciplines in human knowledge.
In The Instinct of Truth: Scientific Curiosity and Moral Qualities, the author mentions Aristotle 88 times and says that the virtues emphasized in this book are virtues in the Aristotle sense, because he associates ethics with virtues of excellence, and the values of the scientists surveyed in the SVP project are a test of this scientific way of thinking.
Confucius, the originator of education, has a classic saying: "To learn without thinking is to be reckless, and to think without learning is to perish", let us think and learn and act.
exegesis:
1. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2117831119#t012. 10.1511/2021.109.4.2023. https://www.americanscientist.org/article/scientists-reflect-about-ethics-and-trust4. The ethics issue: The 10 biggest moral dilemmas in science, https：//www.newscientist.com/round-up/ethics-issue
Author Bio
Zhang Yuehong is the editor (professor), currently the head of Bio-Design and Manufacturing, a former editor-in-chief of the Journal of Zhejiang University (English edition), the vice president of the Journal of Colleges and Universities, a member of the board of directors of the Global Academic Publishing Association (ALPSP) and the International Publishing Links Association (CrossRef); published 66 papers in Chinese and English, 3 short articles published in Nature; and reviewed for Science. He was awarded the COPE Grant in 2011 and published a monograph in Springer in 2016 titled "Against Plagiarism: A Guide for Editors and Authors" (Anti-Plagiarism: A Guide to Editors and Authors). Since 2011, it has won the journal/editor/book awards in the China Publishing Government Awards for four consecutive years. ”
Plate editor| Ginger Duck