Science builds on itself, and the enormous scientific progress of the last several centuries has been due largely to the trust that scientists place in one another and the trust the public places in scientists. I explore the responsibility that researchers have toward one another and to the world at large.

1. Science is Built on Trust
Science builds on itself, and the enormous scientific progress of the last several
centuries has been due largely to the trust that scientists place in one another and the
trust the public places in scientists. Mr. François Christiaens of L’Oréal Research
explores the responsibility that researchers have toward one another and to the world at
large.
by François Christiaens, L’Oréal Research
Ethics can be defined as the study of the moral value of human conduct. Your actions
may be judged as ethical if they conform to notions of what is good and unethical if they
conform to notions of what is bad. Does this mean that ethical issues can be reduced to
simple questions with clear-cut, yes-or-no answers? Experience shows, of course, that it
is difficult to draw a line between what is good and what is bad, and that no simple,
universal straightforward answer exists. Each person must determine the answer for
himself or herself, or rather each person must determine his or her own set of answers.
And those answers must be revised and updated as new knowledge becomes available.
Consequently, there are as many answers to questions of right and wrong and good and
bad as there are individuals. Nevertheless, common ground (culture, religion, etc.)
influences the set of answers that groups of individuals choose; in other words, our
thoughts are shaped by the time and place in which we live. The French philosopher and
mathematician Pascal pointed out that what was considered true in France could be
considered a lie in Spain: Notions of good and bad depend on context. Is this
conclusion valid within the context of scientific research and, if so, what are the
implications?
For example, let us suppose that a group of researchers needs a specific raw material to
make a special detector, and that this raw material can be found only deep within the
earth in the middle of a rainforest. If extraction implies massive deforestation, high
transportation costs with fuel-burning machines, poor safety conditions and unfair wages
for workers, is it ethical to try to obtain this material? The answer may seem obvious. But
let us assume that the detector is designed to detect cancers and hence save thousands
of lives. We are now faced with an ethical dilemma for which there is no easy answer.
The preceding example aims to show that, in addition to concepts of right and good
within the scientists’ immediate environment, concepts of right and good on a global
level must also be brought to bear on ethical questions. The greater the potential
number of people who stand to benefit from a certain research project, the more
valuable the project is perceived to be, but the assessment of its value should also take
into account its impact(s) on people and environments that, at first glance, may not
appear to be affected by the research. Evaluating such impact(s) is far from simple.
This gives rise to the need for general, universal rules that would guide scientists in
conducting their research in a manner that is globally responsible.

2. HONESTY AND TRUST ARE VITAL TO SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS
One aspect of scientific ethics deals with the need for utmost honesty in conducting
research. In this matter, research scientists can refer to a set of guidelines developed by
the Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy (COSEUP) 1, a US
organization composed of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National
Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. This text lays the foundations for
defining unethical behaviors in relation to scientific data as well as outlining ways for the
scientific community to deal with such behaviors. COSEUP defines misconduct in
research as “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or
reviewing research, or in reporting research results.” The importance of trust in science
is spelled out in the following excerpt from an article entitled “Digital Manipulation in
Scientific Images: Some Ethical Considerations”, James E. Hayden, JBC 27(1), 11-19,
2000 2.
“The scientific research enterprise, like other human activities, is built on a
foundation of trust. Scientists trust that the results reported by others are valid.
Society trusts that the results of research reflect an honest attempt by scientists
to describe the world accurately without bias.”
An example of what is perceived as misrepresented research and how other scientists
respond to it: A team of researchers wrote a letter to the editor of a journal that had
published what they believed were misrepresented findings by another team of
researchers studying the effects of ultraviolet radiation on a certain species of fish.
“Contradictory as well as controversial findings are not mentioned and cited which would
put the present paper into a more appropriate context of literature […]”, and that “using
second level literature for citation should be avoided as should omission of previous
findings […]”. Clearly, the authors feel betrayed by their fellow scientists, and COSEUP
explicitly defines the need for trust in the scientific community:
“The level of trust that has characterized science and its relationship with society
has contributed to a period of unparalleled scientific productivity. […] misreporting data or results strike at the heart of the values on which science is
based. These acts of scientific misconduct not only undermine progress but the
entire set of values on which the scientific enterprise rests.”
Moreover, our responsibility to science goes still further:
“But the trust will endure only if the scientific community devotes itself to
exemplifying and transmitting the values associated with ethical scientific
conduct.”
Of particular note is a form of potential misconduct made possible by modern digital
technology. With increasing frequency, images are used to illustrate scientific findings or
1
2
http://www.cmu.edu/osp/regulatory-compliance/rDNA_Documents/ON_BEING_A_SCIENTIST.doc
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10916744

3. to provide visual aids to understanding them. Here again, I quote the above-referenced
article by James Hayden. “It is very easy to handle digital images, and the reasons for
manipulating images are varied. Yet, an image is by definition a manipulation of reality
(manipulation of a subject begins with the initial capture, e.g. depending on the angle of
view, magnifying etc. and is further influenced by the medium in use (e.g. color
rendering,…). But when the content of an image is intentionally altered, irreparable
damage is done to the credibility of the research and the media production industry as a
whole. For impressive examples of altered images, one may visit the Internet site
http://www.worth1000.com. Such alterations are not acceptable in scientific documents,
of course, but a perusal of the site serves to unsettle our faith in photos as accurate
representations of reality.
THE QUESTION OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR OUR FINDINGS
As scientific researchers, we have a great responsibility to think about the potential uses
and misuses of the results of our research. The question to ask is no longer only “What
can be done with our findings”, but must be shifted to “What should be done?” or, more
importantly, “What should not be done?” John Hutchings provides an interesting
example of such questions in an article titled “Talking about color… and ethics”, Color
Research and Application 31(2); 87-89, April 2006 3. For instance, would a color
designer who tries to create a space that would facilitate “cooperation” by prisoners
under questioning be behaving ethically? Perhaps the most well-known example of
such a dilemma concerns the team of physicists whose research led to the atomic
bomb: Was their work ethical? In any field of research and at any level, such questions
arise. Unavoidable and rarely simple, ethical decisions involve both individual choices
about which course of action to take as well as universal standards that must be
adhered to without exception.
3
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/col.20204/abstract