Integrity Mightier than the Pen
A Harris poll in 2006 indicated that scientists were among the most trusted individuals in the nation, with 77% of those polled reporting that they consider scientists trustworthy. In December 2009, however, our rating in the polls dropped. The Washington Post reports that only about 60% of those polled now believe that scientists can be trusted. What has caused the change in our polling numbers? Some of our loss in stature may be related to the recent, highly publicized, incident at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, where the computer system was hacked and correspondence and documents were obtained and posted online. The tone and content of some of the e-mails appears to have suggested that rather than being an unbiased reporter and interpreter of facts, there is a sense that some scientists may have been tweaking or playing with the data to support a political agenda or to prevent others from having access to the data. Such access is a key to the peer-review process and the ability to test and independently confirm published work. Another factor may be the higher visibility given to some incidents of plagiarism. The work by Harold Garner and his colleagues at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center published in Science dealt with plagiarism and has been reported in the general media. This hasn’t helped the standing of scientists, although it has raised a curtain revealing a major issue of concern among the scientific community, with journal editors issuing retractions for a number of papers that had been substantially copied. It has been suggested by members of the Nature editorial staff that this increase in plagiarism may be a result of the need for higher visibility in an environment where research dollars may be limited as well as pressures in the developing world where academic credentials are key to advancement in both academia and society. There are also those highly publicized hoaxes where data were fabricated such as the “Piltdown man” which was assembled though a collection of animal bones or “cold fusion”, which actually was poor science rather than an intentional hoax.
This shadow being cast over the reputations of scientists, in general, provides a framework for a discussion on professional ethics and integrity. Although none of us are directly involved in any of the “scandals” noted above, as geologists and scientists, they do tarnish us all. Whether attempting to sell a prospect to management or a prospective investor, testifying as an expert witness, or simply presenting an idea at a conference or convention our professional success and standing is based on our ability to persuade. The strength of our arguments may be found in the words we select, the manner in which we present them, or the technical background that supports them. Commonly we assume that our knowledge and understanding is the key to our success. Samuel Johnson, stated, however, that“…knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful” and Zig Ziglar reminded us that “the most important persuasion tool you have in your entire arsenal is integrity.” We must, therefore, do all that we can do to maintain our personal ethics and to reestablish the ethics of our community at large.
As a first step, although I believe that we all attempt to act ethically and with integrity, a gentle reminder of some guiding principles is always useful, possibly the reason that the State of Texas requires at least one hour of training in professional ethics each year in order to maintain a professional geologist license. It is useful for all, even those without a state license, to occasionally review the codes of conduct of our various professional organizations, certification boards, and licensing authorities. Although the details vary among these different groups, common to these codes are:
- a requirement to be honest with regard to our reporting and interpretations and not to make unsupported claims,
- insuring that our works are not used for any illegitimate acts,
- providing professional opinions only in those areas where we have knowledge,
- avoiding any conflicts of interest, and
- not divulging confidential information without gaining necessary approvals.
All are simple to remember and generally not to difficult to follow. However, our science is often based on limited sampling and indirect observations that may be interpreted in a number of different ways leading to alternative and possibly contradictory interpretations. In order to support an argument, there are times when references are selectively cited and datasets are culled.
During the peer review process, problems with references and data are often raised and questioned. The problems brought to light through this process are hopefully corrected. However, the peer-review process itself may have problems; the reviewer may have a personal agenda or a conflict of interest, be it academic or business. But even if we are to assume that review process eliminates some of the issues discussed, not all work undergoes the scrutiny of the review process. It may, therefore, not always be clear to those outside of the world of geology what is fact, what is interpretation, what we really don’t know, and why. It is incumbent on us all to ensure that we clearly differentiate between fact and interpretation as well as what other interpretations exist and why we have selected our preferred interpretation. In simplest terms we should remember C. P. Snow’s thought “…the only ethical principle which has made science possible is that the truth shall be told all the time…” By acting in an ethical manner whether it is convenient or not and revealing our biases and conflicts we not only capture the high ground for our selves but will move our profession forward, gaining the lost respect from the lay community.
Until next month…