A Hippocratic Oath For Scientists

grrlscientist writes "In response to what appears to be a growing problem of scientific misconduct, a group of people at the Institute of Medical Science at University of Toronto in Canada wrote a scientist's version of the Hippocratic oath. This oath (which is cited in the story) was recited by all graduate students in the biological sciences at the beginning of the 2007-2008 academic year." This blogger argues that merely reciting an oath is not going to help much when "...the corruption in 'science' is systemic. It is due to corporate science being run according to a business model instead of in accordance to an educational paradigm. It is due to unrestrained corporate greed combined with a tremendous disparity in power and income..."

Comments

Re:Doctors vs. Scientists

[ScrewMaster]

Let's face it, this is symbolic at best.

Re:Besides global warming?

[edwebdev]

Companies pay "research" labs to provide favorable results all the time. They do this to defend their products and profits, to satisfy government regulatory bodies, and to be evil and immoral.

Similar to ...

[Anonymous Coward]

the Oath for The Order of The Engineer?

To quote the oath

[EmbeddedJanitor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

"Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy."

Re:To quote the oath

[HadouKen24]

What the prevailing opinion on abortion was depended on time and place. It's not so simple that you can just say "a majority used to think abortion was bad" even in just America. In some places, it was just fine with most people as long as it occurred before the "quickening," the fetus's first movement in the womb. Before that time, the fetus was considered to be part of the woman's body. This attitude was reflected in English common law until the 19th century, when abortion was criminalized--for the health of the mother, rather than the fetus. Abortion remedies were notoriously dangerous.

The idea that abortion is morally wrong because it destroys the life of the fetus is a reason invented to keep the law in place retrospectively. It was not the intent of those who put the laws into place.

When Hippocrates invented his eponymous oath, most Greeks were okay with abortion. Its banning of abortion was so odd, in fact, that it prompted some scholars on that basis alone to associate the oath with Pythagoreanism, the one strand of ancient Greek thought known to ban it entirely.

Re:To quote the oath

[adisakp]

When Hippocrates invented his eponymous oath, most Greeks were okay with abortion

Abortion presented a lot of risks to the mother back in those days so generally the way to get rid of an unwanted (or unhealthy) baby was infanticide by exposure. In fact, the Greeks were hardly alone as a culture in their use of infanticide.

it's all about money

[Anonymous Coward]

An oath is ridiculous. You get what you pay for. I work in science. As the article says, most people are very conscious of these things. However, when you have to choose between your food or forgetting about that one data point that prevents you from publishing in nature (and being safe), I wonder...

This also suggest that papers in the top-tier journals have the biggest change of being meddled with.

Re:Doctors vs. Scientists

[honkycat]

To clarify what I think you're saying in a way that may be relevant to the grandparent post, the notebook is not a legal document by simple virtue of being a "scientist's notebook." Rather, a lab notebook can be a legally significant document in some legal proceedings. It is only of value in this context if you can demonstrate a consistent adherence to certain standards.

For example, if you are attempting to overturn someone else's patent due to your own prior work, your notebook describing and dating your ideas/tests may be of value. If you're able to produce a career's worth of similar notebooks describing your other work, that will lend credibility to the contents of your notebook.

Re:Doctors vs. Scientists

[eli pabst]

When a doctor breaks their oath they can no longer practice medicine, what happens if a scientists breaks this oath. They can't study stuff?
Well currently you're likely to get banned from getting federal grant money and blacklisted with journals, so for all practical purposes you are totally screwed unless you have a few hundred grand lying around to fund your own work.

Re:Doctors vs. Scientists

[NevermindPhreak]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

Although mostly of historical and traditional value, the oath is considered a rite of passage for practitioners of medicine, although it is not obligatory and no longer taken up by all physicians. I don't think that violating the actual oath means you can no longer practice medicine. However, there are some parts of it that may put your legal status at risk, as well as some things outside of it (like doctor-patient confidentiality).

Re:I pledge not to be a shill or tool

[SiriusStarr]

For instance, some scientists invented a new alloy which they suggest will revolutionize crumple-zones in cars. This alloy includes palladium, a rare-metal. Indeed so rare, if all the palladium on earth were to be used to make this new alloy, we'd get about a cubic meter of the stuff.

What?? Global palladium production was 222 metric tons in 2006 (source). According to the article, this alloy was light enough to float in water. Thus, its density must be less than that of water. Water has a mass of 1 metric ton per cubic meter. Thus, if the alloy were pure palladium, global production could provide for 222 cubic meters annually. I highly doubt that the alloy is pure palladium; in fact, it probably only accounts for a small percentage of the total mass. Do you have some source to cite in defense of your claim? While I agree with your point, I fail to see the reasoning behind this example...

Re:Graduate school is too late to begin teaching t

[penguin king]

The problem is that otherwise ethical students are being taught to fudge their data in undergraduate labs. They are often told directly by their TAs to find out what the correct answer is and work backwards from there. I've never been told by a TA to find the answer and work backwards, but YMM(and apparently has)V(ied). As a TA myself it doesn't matter if a student knows the answer, in fact it is often useful that they already do know the answer (from lectures). Aren't Labs about learning the practical skills? That's how we run them (nb. Chemistry labs YMMV in other fields).

As for people fudging data, in the labs I currently work in as a grad student I have come accross obviously fudged results in a dissertation I was referencing. Thing is peers and my supervisor were not suprised, students that are fudging tend to be poor researchers anyway (why else would they need to fudge?). Any good researcher knows that 'failures' provide as much information as 'successes'.

In my situation I tried three or four times (at a week per attempt) to do a reaction reported as yielding well, with variations on the supplied prep. If it had been reported as not working, I'd not have bothered - may have tried once to confirm the result, maybe twice with variations to optimize. It's not a waste of time, I confirmed that it did not work (which was suspected), however proper reporting initially would have saved me the time, I'm now on another route with some more untried preps and it is working, it might not have, but I'd be the first (we know of) so it isn't time wasted.

Wrong about Palladium

[Joe the Lesser]

Palladium isn't that rare...

"The global production from mines was 222 metric tons in 2006 according to USGS data.[6] Most palladium is used for catalytic converters in the automobile industry."-wikipedia

Re:Well, I don't see why not ...

[DaveV1.0]

You forgot something:

I swear by Apollo, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath.

To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art.

There is already a way to handle this

[geekoid]

it's called peer review.

If you hide the detail of your experiment, it's no good, if no one can reproduce your results, it's no good.
If your day relies on a piece of evidence that has 'disappeared' it's called into question

It works very well, and it's how frauds are caught.

It's there because everyone knows there are biases, and the main think the scientific method does is weed out bias by showing it to many qualified people.