The page introduces some brief, selective, accounts ('vignettes') of selected areas of scientific work that may raise ethical issues.
This page was designed to complement the book chapter 'Ethical considerations in science education', in 'Science Education in the Service of Society' (Ben Akpan, Miia Rannikmäe, and Jack Holbrook, Eds., forthcoming), which has a focus on the ethical aspects of science and its applications.
It is assumed the readership for this book will largely be science educators, such as science teachers and those preparing for science teaching. However some of the linked vignettes may also of interest to anyone studying research methodology. [Advice for new researchers on working ethically can be found in the website section on 'Research Methodology' – e.g., see 'Research Ethics'.]
Reflecting on the ethics of science
The vignettes of studies and areas of research which are introduced here (and described in more detail on the linked pages) are necessarily limited accounts of the original work (with a particular concern with the ethical considerations), and anyone with a strong interest in these studies is advised to refer to the original reports.
I have posed some questions for reflection which may be useful, in particular, for readers of the book chapter.
Honesty is the best policy? An experiment on memory…
"Two people come to a psychology laboratory to take part in a study of memory and learning. One of them is designated a 'teacher' and the other a 'learner'. The experimenter explains that the study is concerned with the effects of punishment on learning."
"…the study is concerned with the effects of punishment on learning…" – But was it?
Read about "Maslow's 37" – who defied the researcher…
Bad blood?
The Tuskagee Syphilis study was an example of a longitudinal study that was continued for four decades. But could it ever have been considered justified form an ethical perspective: and (if so) at what point did it become unethical?
The US Public Health Service study observed the long-term development of a serious infectious disease – but did not offer the infected participants the relevant medical treatment – or even a clear account of their condition.
Read about the bad 'bad blood' study
Observing in the restroom: when researchers toil in the toilets
Researchers made a quite reasonable hypothesis about factors that might affect the delay and persistence of micturation – and then set about testing the idea by carrying out covert observations in the men's toilets…
The journal published the study, so presumably there's nothing unethical there…?
Read about the confederate at the urinals
Should Dr Strangelove be blamed for the bomb?
Should scientists be seen as responsible for the misuse of the technologies they develop?
In August 1945, powerful bombs – so called atomic bombs – dropped over the Japanese cities Hiroshima and – 3 days later – Nagasaki devastated the cities and indiscriminately murdered many, many thousands of men, women and children.
The development of the atomic bombs used over Hiroshima and Nagasaki required the concerted efforts of a large number of scientists; indeed, some of the most respected physicists of the time. After seeing the effects of their work many turned away from this type of research, but not all. Some subsequently developed the so-called Hydrogen bomb (which has not, yet, been used in war) that is vastly more destructive, such that an atomic bomb is used as the fuse to initiate it.
Read about the motivations for the Manhattan project and the effect of the bombs
Vivisection and the sacrifice of animals
There is no doubt that our knowledge of anatomy, physiology and pathology is extremely important in informing medicine – in understanding disease, and planning effective treatments and preventive measures.
Historically, that knowledge has often been the result of experiments on non-human animals – and sometimes human animals – that have been vivisected (cut open while still alive) and/or sacrificed (i.e., killed). This has in the past involved activity which might be considered torturous, and even when more humane methods are used, this often involves breeding organisms purely for medical research, and deliberately injuring or infecting animals to observe the consequences.
Read about the use of animals in medical research.
Limiting learning to make the experiment work
In science, the controlled experiment is seen as the ideal type of study. Keep every feasible variable fixed apart from the one thing we conjecture may be having an effect – and see how changing that variable changes outcomes. Perfect experiments are probably never seen in the natural sciences (we always have to assume it is reasonable to completely ignore a lot of variables we conjecture cannot be involved so do not need to be controlled).
In social research, such as classroom research with learners, doing strictly valid experiments is seldom (if ever) possible. Despite this, lots of studies in science education are set up as 'quasi-experiments'.
One of the simplest designs compares learning outcomes in two groups of learners (often just two different classes), where performance in a class taught with pedagogy X or resource Y is compared with performance of a class assumed to be similar enough for a worthwhile comparison, but taught in some other way. (If you think that should not be too difficult for a researcher to organise, take a look at the page 'Experiments'.) Sadly, such studies seldom offer strong evidence for forming generalised conclusions – even if ultra-keen researchers like to think otherwise.
A particular issue in some of these studies is that the comparison group (often incorrectly labelled as a control group) is sometimes set up to fail to ensure the success of the study. This may amount to imposing restrictions on the kind of teaching and learning activities acceptable – perhaps requiring teachers to deliberately teach less effectively than they would normally do, for the sake of the research.
Read about the use of dubious comparison conditions in classroom research
