Abstract
In this paper I try to contribute to the discussion about incorruptible professional behavior in scientific research. For this purpose I take Merton’s famous norms as a point of departure, not in order to note that scientists do not always conform to them, but to conceive them as ‘default-norms’ by raising the question which deviations may be defensible and which ones are not. The emphasis will be on the norm of disinterestedness. I conclude with a brief discussion of the possibility and usefulness of subsuming all this in a general professional code for scientific researchers.
A Dutch version of this paper appeared already in 1999 (Kuipers 1999). Next it was first translated, revised and extended as my contribution to a planned Liber Amicorum for Annie Kuipers, to be published on the occasion of her retirement. Very dreadfully, she died of cancer in 2003 soon after the plan was set up and the volume never appeared. Annie Kuipers (unfortunately, no family) was for about 25 years the leading person in the field of philosophy at the publishing house Reidel, later Kluwer Academic Publishers (and now part of Springer). It is difficult to overestimate the role she played in the recruitment of authors and the running of book series and journals and setting up new ones. For example, in cooperation with Jaakko Hintikka and Robert Cohen she ‘managed’ for years the Synthese Library book series and the Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, respectively. She played a great role in the well functioning of the journals Erkenntnis and Synthese. Several other books, book series and journals in the area of philosophy, logic and linguistics profited enormously from her efforts. Despite her attempts to the contrary, the prices of such publications became at most, if at all, payable for libraries. This will also apply to the present Springer volume. However this may be, it is worth noting at the start of the European Philosophy of Science Association (EPSA) that Annie Kuipers was a main figure in paving the way for the interaction between philosophers of science of Europe and America, and stimulated in this way the re-vitalization of philosophy of science in Europe where it had made a flourishing start in the Interbellum.
A revised version of the draft for the Liber Amicorum turned out to be very useful as the last chapter (13) of my Structures in Science (2001), in which it is entitled “‘Default-Norms’ in Research Ethics”. That version is here included with the originally intended title, some marginal revisions, and updating notes. I like to thank David Atkinson, Martin van Hees, Erik Krabbe, Anne Ruth Mackor and Jeanne Peijnenburg for their comments on the draft of the chapter. Finally I like to thank the Netherlands Institute of Advanced Study (NIAS, Wassenaar) where I could update it for the present volume.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
Such considerations evidently play a role in the degree in which scientists support these norms, as was recently demonstrated by Macfarlane and Cheng (2008).
- 3.
I would like to mention that in 2002 a very successful stimulation program started at my home University of Groningen, called Rosalind Franklin fellowships. (http://www.rug.nl/corporate/vacatures/rff/index).
- 4.
Once I discovered by myself a case of inadvertent plagiarism, also called cryptomnesia, of an idea of someone else, many years after its publication, which was a strange experience. In a paper in the Dutch journal of philosophy ANTW (Kuipers 1972) I have at least suggested that it was my own idea to write Carnapian inductive probabilities as the weighted sum of a logical and an empirical factor. This was rather embarrassing in view of the fact that I had read no more than two years before in Carnap’s famous The continuum of inductive methods (Carnap 1952) that and how he introduced such probabilities precisely in this way. In my master’s thesis I had chosen for Kemeny’s alternative presentation, which is probably the reason why I had apparently forgotten Carnap’s own way of introduction. Happily enough, nobody else noticed it before; it was discovered later by my then Ph.D.-student Sjoerd Zwart. However, then I could immediately concede and explain. Since this discovery, I know how to minimize the risk, see the main text.
- 5.
Note that this is also quite different from the natural sciences and medicine, where writing books became something for leisure time. This seems very unfortunate, for overviews of a field by an advanced researcher are frequently very helpful for colleagues in related fields and stimulate interdisciplinary research.
- 6.
The present paper is a variant, see notes 1 and 2, stimulated by the editors.
- 7.
Surprisingly enough, NWO has introduced in the twenty-first century the rule that committee and board members do not come to know the names of the referees, let alone, that they might choose them. If one compares this with editors of a journal when they would be in the same position it becomes clear that anonymity is here brought to the absurd.
- 8.
In the meantime the KNAW has published in 2004 such a general code (KNAW 2004), entitled The Netherlands Code of Conduct for Scientific Practice (www.knaw.nl/pdf), which happens to be mildly prescriptive. It concludes with a section on dilemmas explicitly dealing with ‘grey areas’. This is very relevant for the rest of this section.
- 9.
From a personal communication in 2000 with Matthias Kaiser, chair of the ICSU Standing Committee of Ethics and Responsibility in Science.
- 10.
According to a meeting report of March 2007 (www. icsu.org), this project has never been completed.
- 11.
For interesting critical comments on this paper and further discussion, see Zandvoort (2005), and my reply immediately after that paper.
References
Broad W, Wade N (1982) Betrayers of the truth. Simon en Schuster, New York
Carnap R (1952) The continuum of inductive methods. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL
Kaiser M (1996) Towards more secrecy in science? – Comments on some structural changes in science and their implications for an ethics of science. Persp Sci 4.2:207–230
KNAW (2000) Wetenschappelijk onderzoek: dilemma’s en verleidingen. Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie voor Wetenschappen, Amsterdam
KNAW (2004) The Netherlands code of conduct for scientific practice. Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie voor Wetenschappen, Amsterdam
Köbben A, en Tromp H (1999) De onwelkome boodschap. Mets, Amsterdam
Kolfschoten F. van (1993) Valse Vooruitgang. Veen, Amsterdam
Kuipers T (1972) Inductieve waarschijnlijkheid, de basis van inductieve logica. Algemeen Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Wijsbegeerte (ANTW) 64.4:291–296
Kuipers T (1999) De integriteit van de wetenschapper. In: red Kimman E, Schilder A, en Jacobs F (eds) Drieluijk: godsdienst, samenleving, bedrijfsethiek. Liber Amicorum voor Henk van Luijk. Thela-Thesis, Amsterdam, pp 99–109
Kuipers T (2000) From instrumentalism to constructive realism. Synthese Library, Kluwer, Dordrecht
Kuipers T (2001) Structures in science. Synthese Library, Kluwer, Dordrecht
Lafollette M (1992) Stealing into print. Fraud, plagiarism, and misconduct in scientific publishing, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA
Latour B (1987) Science in action. Open University Press, Milton Keynes
Macfarlane B, Cheng M (2008) Communism, universalism and disinterestedness: re-examining contemporary support among academics for Merton’s scientific norms. J Acad Ethics 6:67–78
Merton RK (1942) Science and technology in a democratic order. J Legal Polit Sociol 1:115–126. Reprinted under several titles, e.g. The normative structure of science. In: Merton RK The sociology of science. The University of Chicago Press, 1973, pp 267–278
Mulkay M (1977) Some connections between the quantitative history of science, the social history of science, and the sociology of science. In: Löppönen P (ed) Proceedings of the International Seminar on Science Studies, Publication of the Academy of Science, Helsinki, 4:54–76
NAS (1989) On being a scientist: responsible conduct in research. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC
Niiniluoto I (1999) Critical scientific realism. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Pettit Ph (1992) Instituting a research ethics. Chilling and cautionary tales. Bioethics 6.2:89–112
Sober E (2000) Philosophy of biology, 2nd edition. Westview, Boulder/Oxford
Solomon M (1996) Information and the ethics of information control in science. Persp Sci 4.2: 195–206
Withaar H (1979) De Context of Persuasian – een voorstel tot ruilverkaveling. Kennis en Methode 3.1:41–50
Woolgar S (1988) Science: the very idea. Tavistock, London
Zandvoort H (2005) Knowledge, risk, and liability. Analysis of a discussion continuing within science and technology. In: Festa R, Aliseda A, Peijnenburg J (eds) Rodopi cognitive structures in scientific inquiry. Essays in debate with Theo Kuipers, vol 2. Amsterdam, pp 469–498. Reply T. Kuipers, pp 499–502
Ziman J (1994) Prometheus bound: science in a dynamic steady state. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kuipers, T.A.F. (2009). The Gray Area for Incorruptible Scientific Research. In: Suárez, M., Dorato, M., Rédei, M. (eds) EPSA Epistemology and Methodology of Science. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3263-8_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3263-8_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-3262-1
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-3263-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)