by In the past 400 years, a series of mainly unwritten guidelines has evolved for how science should be done properly. The assumption in the research community is that science is most effective when scientists behave in certain ways.
The first person to write down these attitudes and behavior was Robert Merton, in 1942. The founder of the sociology of science put what he called the ‘Ethos of Science’, a series of ‘values and norms considered binding for the man of science’. (Yes, it is sexist formulation. Yes, they were the 1940s.) These are now called scientific standards.
The point of these standards is that scientists must behave in ways that improve the collective progress of knowledge. If you are a cynic, you might roll your eyes to such a Pollyannaish ideal. But old -fashioned expectations keep the world functioning. Think: Be friendly, clean up your mess, bring the shopping cart back to the Karral.
I am a physical geographer who realized a long time ago that students are getting biology in biology lessons and chemical classes, but they are rarely taught about the umbrella concepts of science itself. So I wrote a book with the name ‘The Scientific Endeavor’, and explained what scientists and other well -trained people need to know about science itself.
Scientists in training are expected to learn the great picture of science after years of observing their mentors, but that does not always happen. And understanding what scientists drives, cannot help scientists better understand research results. These scientific standards form a large part of the scientific enterprise. Here are the original four of Merton, together with a few I think it is worth adding to the list:
Universalism
Scientific knowledge is for everyone – it is universal – and not the domain of an individual or group. In other words, a scientific claim must be assessed on his merits, not on the person who makes it. Characteristics such as the nationality, gender or favorite sports team of a scientist should not have an influence on how their work is assessed.
Also, the past of a scientist should not affect how you assess which claim they are currently making. Nobel Prize -winning chemist Linus Pauling, for example, was unable to convince most scientists that large doses of vitamin C are medically advantageous; His evidence did not support his claim sufficiently.
In practice it is difficult to honestly assess conflicting claims when they come from a “big name” in the field versus an unknown researcher without a reputation. However, it is easy to point out such infringements of universalism when others scientific fame have their opinion influenced in one way or another about new work.
Communism
Communism In science is the idea that scientific knowledge is and must be shared.
Jonas Salk, who led the research that resulted in the polio vaccine, offers a classic example of this scientific norm. He published the work and did not patent the vaccine so that it could be produced freely at low costs.
If scientific research does not have direct commercial application, communism is easy to practice. However, when money is involved, things become complicated. Many scientists work for companies, and they may not publish their findings to keep them away from competitors. The same applies to military research and cyber security, where the publication of findings can help the bad guys.
Interest
Inmenability refers to the expectation that scientists mainly pursue their work for the promotion of knowledge, not to promote or become rich. The expectation is that a researcher will share the results of his work, regardless of the implications of a finding for their career or economic bottom line.
Research into politically hot topics, such as Vaccin Safety, is where it can be difficult to stay free of charge. Imagine a scientist who is strong pro-vaccine. If their vaccine research results suggest serious danger for children, the scientist is still obliged to share these findings.
Similarly, if a scientist has invested in a company that sells a medicine, and demonstrates the scientist’s research that the medicine is dangerous, they are morally forced to publish the work, even if that would harm his income.
In the publication of research, scientists are also obliged to announce conflicts of interest with regard to the work. This step informs others that they might want to be skeptical in evaluating work, in the event that self -interest has been won about disinterest.
Inmenability also applies to Journal Editors, who are obliged to decide whether they want to publish research on the basis of science, not the political or economic implications.
Organized skepticism
The last standard of Merton is organized skepticism. Skepticism does not mean that rejecting ideas because you don’t like them. Being skeptical in science is to be very critical and to look for weaknesses in a piece of research.
This concept is formalized in the Peer Review process. When a scientist submits an article in a magazine, the editor sends it to two or three scientists who are familiar with the subject used and the methods used. They read it carefully and point to all the problems they find.
The editor then uses the reviews of the reviewer to decide whether they are accepted as it is, to reject revisions or ask for revisions. If the decision is revised, the author then makes any change or tries to convince the editor that the reviewer is wrong.
Peer review is not perfect and does not always catch bad research, but in most cases it improves work and science benefits. Traditionally, the results were only made public after Peer Review, but that practice has been weakened in recent years with the rise of preprints, which reduces the reliability of information for non -scientists.
Integrity and humility
I add two standards to the Merton list.
The first is integrity. It is so fundamental for good science that it seems almost unnecessary to mention. But I think it is justified because cheating, stealing and lazy scientists nowadays get a lot of attention.
The second is humility. You may have contributed to our understanding of cell division, but do not tell us that you have healed cancer. You may be a leader in research into quantum mechanics, but that does not make you authority in the field of climate change.
Scientific standards are guidelines for how scientists are expected to behave. A researcher who violates one of these standards will not be taken to the prison or an exorbitant reimbursement. But if a standard is not followed, scientists must be willing to justify their reasons, both for themselves and for others.
This article is re -published of the conversation, a non -profit, independent news organization that gives you facts and reliable analysis to help you understand our complex world. It is written by: Jeffrey A. Lee, Texas Tech University
Read more:
Jeffrey A. Lee does not work for, consult, in or receives financing from a company or organization that would benefit from this article and has not announced relevant ties with their academic appointment.
