Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Kowalskil]

Ethical standards: science versus business

I have read accusations that scientist are not always honest; that they produce reports to impress bosses, for example, in tobaco laboratories, drug companies, etc. In such institutions scientists “have a strong motive to fudge data;” they are payed to please. Commenting to this I wrote:

This observation calls for a clarification of the concept "scientist." Most often this term is used to describe a person preoccupied with an investigation in the physical world. Perhaps this is too broad. I suggest the following definition: "a scientist is a person who is not only preoccupied with physical matters but is also trustworthy." By "trustworthy" I mean "does not hide anything."

Here is one real situation. A claim was made, about a year ago, that a desirable energy-producing device was invented in Italy. About a mounth ago a prototype was actually demonstrated at Bolognia University.

http://pesn.com/2011/01/19/9501747_cold ... o_Rossi_br eakthrough/

Heat was generated as hydrogen gas was flowing through a niclel powder mixed with a catalyst. The inventor, Andrea Rossi, did not answer the question about the nature of the catalyst. One of my colleagues was present at the demonstration, standing next to it. He brought a portable instrument able to analyze nuclear radiation escaping from the device. But the demonstrator did not allow him to turn the instrument on. Because of this, I no longer think that Rossi is a scientist.

How would secrecy be justified by him? He would probably refer to undesirable competition, and to possible future difficulties with patenting the device. This is understandable. Secrecy is OK, but only up to the time at which the invention is publicly announced. A true scientist would not prevent my colleague from turning the instrument on; a true scientist would provide information about the chemical composition of the powder. Rossi certainly knows what is expected from a scientist. But he also needs money from potential investors. The demo at the university was probably designed to impress them. Ethically standards in business are not the saame as in science.

Ludwik
.
.
[/u]

[A Poster He or I]

Ludwik,

I am very sympathetic to your concern and have read of similar accounts of scientists or their assistants fudging experimental data to procure a practical outcome beneficial to their goal. Unfortunately, I don't see much value in simply proposing that we not call such people scientists unless institutionalized science (viz., the scientific community at large plus academia)can keep track as a whole who the offenders are. I've read of examples of scientists who were discredited by adverse criticism in highly respected scientific journals, but such a technique is too sporadic and unsystematic to expose abuse of science in an ongoing fashion. So, I am curious if you might have any other ideas. How do you feel about the idea of an internationally recognized bureau of scientific oversight?

[Kowalskil]

Ludwik,

I am very sympathetic to your concern and have read of similar accounts of scientists or their assistants fudging experimental data to procure a practical outcome beneficial to their goal. Unfortunately, I don't see much value in simply proposing that we not call such people scientists unless institutionalized science (viz., the scientific community at large plus academia)can keep track as a whole who the offenders are. I've read of examples of scientists who were discredited by adverse criticism in highly respected scientific journals, but such a technique is too sporadic and unsystematic to expose abuse of science in an ongoing fashion. So, I am curious if you might have any other ideas. How do you feel about the idea of an internationally recognized bureau of scientific oversight?

I do not have a solution. That is why I invented my own definition.

Ludwik
.
.

[Keith Russell]

Your definition seems like yet another example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Your definition does not add clarity to our understanding of what a "scientist" is; it simply draws a smaller "circle" within the "set" of "scientists", including some, excluding others.