Ethics Shape Science
Have you ever questioned how it is possible to speak of The Scientific Method as if there were only one, whilst knowing that different sciences work in fundamentally different ways? Have you ever wondered how different sciences emerge and disappear throughout the ages? It seems that Science is shaped by the very evolution of human society. Science responds precisely to what is expected from it given a social context. And yet we speak of The Scientific Method as if immutable. So, what do we mean by “scientific method”? Let me use an outrageous analogy.
Imagine a jazz quartet (this analogy is inspired by Schroeter & Schroeter, 2009, as found in Haslanger, 2010: 179). Let’s say bass, piano, saxophone and drums. Now imagine they play an improvised piece. A slow beat is set by the drums, a gently played set of chords come from a piano that occasionally offers subtle flourishes, the saxophone takes centre stage with a soothing melody and the bass plays lower, longer notes in the background. No score is necessary. Even if they are playing a jazz standard, each musician is their own person. And yet they coordinate majestically. The unique beats and rhythms, the dissonant ebbs and flows of sound — they fill your mind with a sense of wholeness and wonder, of music, of jazz. This coordination, these implicitly negotiated ups and downs in the melodic cacophony — these are analogous in spirit to what the scientific method is to Science. The way the jazz piece is played can — and will — change from gig to gig, but it will always be jazz. In the meantime, what is deemed Science necessarily evolves throughout human history, but it is always the result of coordinated intentions and shared understandings — Science always follows some scientific method.
So I am taking scientific method to refer to some essence of an ever-changing Science. Thomas Kuhn took the key theories, instruments, values and metaphysical assumptions to comprise what he called paradigms — roughly, the framework within which a scientific discipline is “normally” conducted. In the case of our jazz quartet, paradigms would be the result of the continuous coordination games played by the musicians. Packing up and heading to the next gig could then relate with Kuhn’s so-called “paradigm shifts.” In Science (as Kuhn intended them), paradigm shifts might not be so simple — they would require radical changes to its foundational elements (key theories and so on). But what could drive such changes?
Given the increasing diversity of scientific disciplines and the technological advancements that sustain Science’s quickening development, it seems clear that scientific inquiry has a huge impact on how we live our lives — whether it’s for the development of more sophisticated social media algorithms, for finding cures and treatments for diseases, or to create secure environments to combat the threat of cyberattacks. Considering the societal implications of scientific work implies that it should be subject to further scrutiny. Whilst it is true that universities and institutes around the world put their research proposals through ethics committees, Research Ethics is a relatively young field. Oftentimes, Research Ethics is seen as coming into being with bioethics, which gained traction after the appalling experiments conducted by the Nazis and other fellow eugenicists. There is a longer and more complex history to this interdisciplinary field, of course, with ethical standards being set out for medical practitioners in the Ancient Greek Hippocratic oath, Thomas Percival speaking of “medical ethics” in 1803 and Jahr’s (1927) Bio-Ethik (see Sass, 2007 on Jahr’s work). However, the idea of Ethics as being an afterthought — a reaction only to clearly heinous acts in the name of “science” — is far too easy to come by to simply dismiss.
So, what might allow us to conduct a more ethical science? What could make ethical considerations a necessary part of any scientific project, rather than an afterthought? We have already seen that “The Scientific Method” isn’t as straightforwardly unique as we are taught at school (some blame Dewey, 1910, for the simplified scientific method become most acquainted to — see page 72 of the referenced book here), both because it changes throughout time and different sciences employ different methodologies and tools. And it also seems to follow that our increased understanding of the role that Science has in shaping the world around us means greater focus on the its Ethics. However, any individual cynical vein in one’s body will have us question whether it follows that “knowing science has consequences” leads to “taking action in science related with those consequences.” If the inference followed perfectly, the world would be harmonious and people wouldn’t do bad things (I mean really bad things). So it seems we need a movement, some way to convey the necessary shift towards a more robust Ethics that is embedded in Science.
It seems we need a movement, some way to convey the necessary shift towards a more robust Ethics that is embedded in Science.
One way we can embed Ethics in Science is by hiring, well, ethicists to work alongside scientists and question their assumptions and motivations. However, the ethicist’s role cannot be that of some “philosopher king” (to borrow Plato’s term). The ethicist cannot be the bearer of all philosophical burden and ruler of Science (the scientist would never allow this, anyway), but must guide scientists towards questioning their own assumptions and motivations — a bit more like a mentor following the Socratic Method. Empowering scientists to think for themselves would not make the position of research ethicist immediately redundant — there is always space for more Ethics. But that was the aim after all: to embed Ethics and continue its organic growth. However, how can the practices inspired by ethicists and ethical considerations become widespread amongst scientific communities?
The Open Science Movement is one that has been gaining traction with the development of Data Science. Traceable to Al-Ruhawi’s call for the need of peer-reviewed medical notes in the 9th century and the development of academic journals in the 17th century (see Green’s An Illustrated History of Open Science), statements such as the Budapest Open Access Initiative’s in 2001 and papers such as the FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship in 2016 have helped reframe and reinvigorate a movement that is necessary to optimise the potential impact of Science. Ultimately, what drove the need for academic journals to become more accessible was the acknowledgement of scientists needing to be able to learn from one another. Furthermore, the speed at which data and scientific outputs are increasing highlights the limits of the human brain and places the onus for future scientific developments on scientific communities rather than on individual researchers. Going a step further, Open Science allows for a more participatory science — for increased access to those whom are affected by scientific work so that this work may be carried out more empathetically and accurately, allowing for more diverse voices to be heard and integrated into pertinent research.
One crucial way in which Open Science can help spread the word of a more ethical science is through metadata. Roughly, metadata is that data which refers to a project’s dataset. Metadata may include information about the date when each datapoint was recorded, its source, some name for identification, a tag (or tags) for categorisation and so on. To this effect, metadata can include how the data should be employed and its pertinent methodology. Given all of this, metadata could include information about how the project was designed and impacted through ethical reflections. Taking Open Science to its full potential, there is no reason why ethical considerations not form a part of an open source project’s metadata. If we take Ethics seriously, after all, it can strongly influence how we conduct our science, by guiding decisions about data collection, analysis methodology, communication strategy, and so on — it can provide for a new paradigm shift.
Philosophy in general and Ethics in particular provide powerful tools for the required reflection; Open Science allows for the spreading of scientific best practices and ethical ideals.
Science changes, it evolves, it is influenced by prevailing sociopolitical movements and ideologies; and it too shapes the world within which is takes place. Science is no longer a perfect lens that unveils some objectively true external world — it is a prism that shows a much more nuanced and colourful version of a reality that we can endlessly debate. Insofar that we can question Science, we can use it for our own purposes: to improve our societies and how we interact with the natural environment. Philosophy in general and Ethics in particular provide powerful tools for the required reflection; Open Science allows for the spreading of scientific best practices and ethical ideals.
This is not a defence of some final stage in the evolution of Science. Paradigms will come and go. Rather, this is a suggestion that two fields and methods that already exist be tapped into so that Science may continue to improve; so that it may better consider its motivations and its effects on society for the very purpose of bringing forth a more harmonious world.
If you’re interested in learning more about ethics in science and open science, join us in writing a Guide for Ethical Research in The Turing Way, an online book supporting scientists to conduct research that is reproducible and impactful!
An outline of the planned guide is in this GitHub comment
We’re a friendly bunch, so please feel free to contribute, reach out to myself and follow @TuringWay on Twitter!
This was originally posted on the Philosophy for Business blog
