Recently, there has been much publicity over violations of scientific ethics,?

Question

including researchers’ plagiarizing others’ work, using other scientists’ methods to develop lucrative patents, or just plain fabricating data. How important an issue is this for society? What are the boundary lines of ethical scientific behavior? How should the scientific community or society “police” scientists? What punishments would be appropriate for violations of scientific ethics?

Answer 1

This is a very interesting question and has been a continuing feature of scientific debate for many years. Essentially, science and scientific research is self regulating. Publishing (for non- profit organizations) is the basic form in which scientific research is brought into the public domain. Prior to publication in reputable scientific journals all submitted manuscripts undergo peer review, and depending upon the particular journal this can range from 2-3 independent scientist who are usually experts in the field, and selected by the journal to which the manuscript is sent to for consideration. Papers are then scrutinized for a variety of things, methods, results, analysis, conclusions, relevance etc. A reviewer will take (or is supposed to take) a balanced look at the submitted material and submit their comments back to the journal. In this way a paper will undergo considerable evaluation and its scientific validity assessed. The system is not perfect and things can slip through. Additionally there have been incidents of valid papers being rejected by reviewers not because the paper is flawed, but because it is in conflict with the reviewers own research.

For the purposes of patents any material currently in the public domain (and this can even include in some cases a conversation between scientists) would not be valid for a patent application. Much of the controversy surrounding these types of incidents are where a scientist works for a company and has received no credit (monetary or otherwise) for their work and this can be a very difficult issue to resolve.

Whilst the system is not perfect, the current approach of peer review does work well, and of course once the material is published it is available to anyone who wants to examine it, and form their opinion as to its merits.

In cases of gross misconduct, false results etc, a case in Scotland occurred not that long ago, the material went to the distinguished Royal Society for scrutiny by a board of top scientist. The findings are out their in cyberspace. Essentially the Royal Society in England, and other distinguished bodies in other countries can and do act as the ultimate arbitrator and 'police' the scientific community.

'Punishment' is a difficult one. Having ones research hauled through the press and scientific community as being invalid can kill a career quicker than than cyanide. Cases have also occurred where qualifications have been stripped but this is rare since the research to obtain the qualification can be perfectly valid, and it is subsequent indiscretions that are in question. And to remove a qualification it would need to be shown that the work that resulted in the qualification was in question.

Most scientists have a very high standard of ethics and very exacting standards, and sufficient egos that why on earth would they claim others research as their own since it is obviously inferior to their own work! (I'm a scientist so I include myself in this and am not taking cheap shots).

The real damage is to public confidence, and how the scientific world is seen as a whole and consequently its credibility. This damage is considerably harder to repair.

Answer 2

Guess what, some scientists are lured by the benefits of wealth, just like other intelligent people. They are also subject to the same laws as everyone else regarding intellectual property, plagiarism, etc.
It is important for society, because intellectual property rights and patents actually restrict the flow and dissemination of information and scientific knowledge. Rather than publish data, scientists, particularly those working in private industry, will retain knowledge until it is financial lucrative to divulge it. Had they released it earlier, others may have made similar discoveries, but the market, say for a particular treatment, may have been saturated, thus reducing the return for the initial research investment.
This slows the development of new treatments.

This is what happens when scientists are compromised by the lure of wealth.