How would you improve ethics in science & research?

There is an age old question in regards to ethics in science and research and that is how much preconceived notions and patronage play a role in conclusions. That is, if a company sponsor’s scientific research will it only release or publish those results that support the goal of the company?

We assume that science is conducted in a vacuum with outside influences that play no role in the outcome. We assume objectivity in science that often isn’t there. But research is conducted by people and people are anything but objective. Let’s say for example that an independent research company funded by anti-tobacco money were to suddenly discover that tobacco was healthy, cured disease and could lead to world peace. How motivated would an anti-tobacco company be to release those findings? Not very; in fact tobacco companies have known for decades some of the harmful side effects of smoking, based on their own extensive research but refused to share any findings because of the effect it would have on the bottom line.

Which is the root of the vast majority of problems in research. Science is expensive and the money has to come from somewhere, but often the people who control the purse strings want a specific outcome. One of the ways to remove a lack of objectivity is to remove who controls the purse string. But setting up science as a philanthropic endeavor puts another problem in the mix. Which government or group gives the money to the researcher and which research deserves funding over another?

We’re encountering this problem now in the energy field. It’s pretty common knowledge that hybrid engines and high mileage vehicles have been a possibility for the past three decades. After all tons of research went into the problem during the gas crisis in the seventies. Yet hybrid engines are only just now becoming available in mass production. Why? Money, in the form of big oil company sponsored lobbying groups funded much of the research that indicated a switch by the Big Three motor companies would be too expensive. The resulting analysis was tainted by the company presenting it. It’s not limited to big oil though. Electric companies are now exploring alternative energy sources despite a known need for two decades. But again, who funds the research that determines when a plan should go in effect?

But improving ethics in science and research means eliminating and limiting inherent biases based on the person conducting the research too. How do you change human nature? How do you control human impulses? These are questions that we may not be able to answer. So we need to create some form of measurable method to observe and report on ethics results and the impact they have on scientific research.

Research itself tries to do this through double blind studies , and control groups. The internet has gone a long way to increasing access to knowledge, but a new level of transparency is needed. Think of it as a “group mind” method of research, a kind of Facebook among scientists. Create a research based database that lists all the factors not only in the study itself, but who funds the study, the participants conducting the study and an ongoing conversation in the scientific community regarding the study.

In the past, scientists conduct research alone and publish their “findings” in a journal after the fact. A way to improve ethics is to conduct the study under the very watchful eyes of other scientists, who can comment on methodology and offer suggestion. They could ask the question “Why” and the research results would be based on solid evidence that cannot be manipulated. This also has the added benefit of opening up the lines of thinking outside of the area of expertise. A scientist who is an expert in one field may not consider options from outside that field, yet if his research was conducted in plain view, he may get suggestions and comments that could open up new areas of opportunity he never considered.

And of course any group mind thinking would eliminate all anonymity. We see this on discussion boards all the time where people attack (flame) other’s comments and suggestions all the while hiding behind an anonymous name. Full disclosure on the part of the researchers would demand full disclosure on the part of the commentators. A tobacco executive stating that anti-tobacco research is bogus would have to tell the community he works for a tobacco company. His opinion may not hold as much weight and he would have to support his comments and allegations.

Open up the lines and methods of communication to improve ethics in science and research. We can accomplish more in a shorter period of time and grow as a race.