Behind the Themes and Between the Lines: Moving Beyond Scientific Misconduct to Higher Ground
- PDF / 70,352 Bytes
- 1 Pages / 612 x 792 pts (letter) Page_size
- 74 Downloads / 195 Views
EDITORIAL
Behind the Themes and Between the Lines: Moving Beyond Scientific Misconduct to Higher Ground Ethics is rarely publicly discussed in materials research circles or covered on the pages of MRS Bulletin. In fact, a few years ago, MRS Bulletin considered starting a department on ethical issues, but it did not gain steam due to the lack of available content. This is something for which the materials community should be proud, but current events remind us that we can never rest on our laurels. In RESEARCH/RESEARCHERS (page 834), we cover the report that found Hendrik Schön responsible for scientific misconduct in a series of published papers. While the report gave a definitive end to the investigation, it brought to the fore additional questions. After a finding of scientific misconduct that permeated so many highly respected sources, how do we reassess the relevant scientific knowledge base? What has been verified by other, more credible, data? What is reasonable, but needs to be retested? What is still a far stretch, but worth stretching to attain? And what needs to be cast aside as invalid or even impossible? It is much easier to build knowledge than to whittle it away, but we must move back to what is known, but no further, and then continue the climb once more. Once the scientific base regains its bearings, how do we go forward with rapid enthusiasm and realistic assessment? What codes of ethics are assumed or are in place to ensure the long-term integrity and viability of our scientific foundation, and are they upheld? While such codes develop over time, we can take this opportunity to step back, gather the collective knowledge and best practices that already exist, and then embark on the path to higher ground. We can start with the satisfaction that the scientific process of review and validation did eventually unearth the misconduct in this high-profile case. Also, Bell Labs can be commended for taking rapid action to investigate and report on the misconduct allegations.
However, while the system caught the misconduct, the community has not escaped unscathed. How long and how much energy will it take to correct the course? What can co-authors, management, and reviewers do as we go forward to sniff out and snuff out misconduct earlier as well as to intercept more common human error? In materials science, where “interdisciplinarity” is its essence, the responsibilities of co-authors have become complex. By design, our field encourages researchers with vastly different expertise and capabilities to work together to solve problems too big for an individual to do alone. It is not possible for all authors to be experts on the data taken by all of their colleagues, and thus we must collaborate with a degree of trust. However, this is also why a co-author should enter as a full participant, with eyes wide open. Collaboration is more than just “I do this, you do that.” There needs to be understanding and interaction at the interface (the essence of MRS, from my perspective). As specialists in a field of divers
Data Loading...
