ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













Doing Good Science

Doing Good Science


Building knowledge, training new scientists, sharing a world.
Doing Good Science Home

On the value of empathy, not othering.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Email   PrintPrint



Could seeing the world through the eyes of the scientist who behaves unethically be a valuable tool for those trying to behave ethically?

Last semester, I asked my “Ethics in Science” students to review an online ethics training module of the sort that many institutions use to address responsible conduct of research with their students and employees. Many of my students elected to review the Office of Research Integrity’s interactive movie The Lab, which takes you through a “choose your own adventure” scenario in as academic lab as one of four characters (a graduate student, a postdoc, the principal investigator, or the institution’s research integrity officer). The scenario surrounds research misconduct by another member of the lab, and your goal is to do what you can to address the problems — and to avoid being drawn into committing misconduct yourself.

By and large, my students reported that “The Lab” was a worthwhile activity. As part of the assignment, I asked them to suggest changes, and a number of them made what I thought was a striking suggestion: players should have the option to play the character who commits the misconduct.

I can imagine some imminently sensible reasons why the team that produced “The Lab” didn’t include the cheater as a playable character. For instance, if the scenario were to start before the decision to cheat and the user playing this character picks the options that amount to not cheating, you end up with a story that lacks almost all of the drama. Similarly, if you pick up with that character in the immediate aftermath of the instance of cheating and go with the “come clean/don’t dig a deeper hole” options, the story ends pretty quickly.

Setting the need for dramatic tension aside, I suspect that another reason that “The Lab” doesn’t include the cheater as a playable character is that people who are undergoing research ethics training are supposed to think of themselves as people who would not cheat. Rather, they’re supposed to think of themselves as ethical folks who would resist temptation and stand up to cheating when others do it. These training exercises bring out some of the particular challenges that might be associated with making good ethical decisions (many of them connected to seeing a bit further down the causal chain to anticipate the likely consequences of your choices), but they tend to position the cheater as just part of the environment to which the ethical researcher must respond.

I think this is a mistake. I think there may be something valuable in being able to view those who commit misconduct as more than mere antagonists or monsters.

Part of what makes “The Lab” a useful exercise is that it presents situations with a number of choices available to us, some easier and some harder, some likely to lead to interactions that are more honest and fair and others more likely to lead to problems. In real life, though, we don’t usually have the option of rewinding time and choosing a different option if our first choice goes badly. Nor do we have assurance that we’ll end up being the good guys.

It’s important to understand the temptations that the cheaters felt — the circumstances that made their unethical behaviors seem expedient, or rational, or necessary. Casting cheaters as monsters is glossing over our own human vulnerability to these bad choices, which will surely make the temptations harder to handle when we encounter them. Moreover, understanding the cheaters as humans (just like the scientists who haven’t cheated) rather than “other” in some fundamental way lets us examine those temptations and then collectively create working environments with fewer of them. Though it’s part of a different discussion, Ashe Dryden describes the dangers of “othering” here quite well:

There is no critical discussion about what leads to these incidents — what parts of our culture allow these things to go unchecked for so long, how pervasive they are, and how so much of this is rewarded directly or indirectly. …

It’s important to notice what is happening here: by declaring that the people doing these things are others, it removes the need to examine our own actions. The logic assumed is that only bad people do these things and we aren’t bad people, so we couldn’t do something like this. Othering effectively absolves ourselves of any blame.

The dramatic arc of “The Lab” is definitely not centered on the cheater’s redemption, nor on cultivating empathy for him, and in the context of the particular training it offers, that’s fine. Sometimes one’s first priority is protecting or repairing the integrity of the scientific record, or ensuring a well-functioning scientific community by isolating a member who has proven himself untrustworthy.

But, that member of the community who we’re isolating, or rehabilitating, is connected to the community — connected to us — in complicated ways. Misconduct doesn’t just happen, but neither is it the case that, when someone commits it, it’s just the matter of the choices and actions of an individual in a vacuum.

The community is participating in creating the environment in which people commit misconduct. Trying to understand the ways in which behaviors, expectations, formal and informal reward systems, and the like can encourage big ethical transgressions or desensitize people to “little” lapses may be a crucial step to creating an environment where fewer people commit misconduct, whether because the cost of doing so is too high or the payoff for doing so (if you get away with it) is too low.

But seeing members of the community as connected in this way requires not seeing the research environment as static and unchangeable — and not seeing those in the community who commit misconduct as fundamentally different creatures from those who do not.

All of this makes me think that part of the voluntary exclusion deals between people who have committed misconduct and the ORI should be an allocution, in which the wrongdoer spells out the precise circumstances of the misconduct, including the pressures in the foreground when the wrongdoer chose the unethical course. This would not be an excuse but an explanation, a post-mortem of the misconduct available to the community for inspection and instruction. Ideally, others might recognize familiar situations in the allocution and then consider how close their own behavior in such situations has come to crossing ethical lines, as well as what factors seemed to help them avoid crossing those lines. As well, researchers could think together about what gives rise to the situations and the temptations within them and explore whether common practices can be tweaked to remove some of the temptations while supporting knowledge-building and knowledge builders.

Casting cheaters as monsters doesn’t do much to help people make good choices in the face of difficult circumstances. Ignoring the ways we contribute to creating those circumstances doesn’t help, either — and may even increase the risk that we’ll become like the “monsters” we decry

Janet D. Stemwedel About the Author: Janet D. Stemwedel is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at San José State University. Her explorations of ethics, scientific knowledge-building, and how they are intertwined are informed by her misspent scientific youth as a physical chemist. Follow on Twitter @docfreeride.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.





Rights & Permissions

Comments 4 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. MTomasson 3:50 pm 07/9/2014

    I could not agree more. I have been drafted to teach the NIH-mandated ethics class for graduate students. (I’ve thought it amusing that someone like me without any ethics/philosophy training is considered qualified for teaching ethics, but that’s another issue)

    It pains me to see ethical transgressions portrayed as simple bad behavior. “Other” as you say. Ethical dilemmas are IMHO part-in-parcel with peak competition. In other words, if you are not wrestling with ethical issues, you are not operating at the highest competitive level in whatever field you are in.

    Great post.

    Link to this
  2. 2. KenPimple 4:42 pm 07/9/2014

    This is a great essay; thank you.

    I like the idea of the allocution, but I doubt it would be successful in practice. Researchers who are found to have committed misconduct are often prone to making excuses and resisting authority (this is not a statement about character, but actions and reactions in a particular stressful situation).

    Allocution might stimulate researchers to “think together about what gives rise to the situations and the temptations within them and explore whether common practices can be tweaked to remove some of the temptations,” but there are other ways to approach the same goal. In 2012 I and a colleague suggested some approaches to the Office of Research Integrity, which can be found at

    https://nationalethicscenter.org/groups/trewde/blog/2012/01/our-suggestions-for-the-research-on-research-integrity-program—pimple-and-adams

    Earlier we published a paper on the topic:

    Adams, Douglas, and Kenneth D. Pimple. 2005. “Research Misconduct and Crime: Lessons from Criminal Science on Preventing Misconduct and Promoting Integrity.” Accountability in Research 12(3):225-240 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08989620500217495?journalCode=gacr20

    Link to this
  3. 3. swangh 5:36 pm 07/9/2014

    This article is wonderfully wise. As a teacher of theater, I would add however, that another reason why Stemwedel’s students may have wanted to play the cheater is that playing the bad-guy can be more fun than being righteous. Getting away with something “wrong” is not only a question of ethics, it is also an emotional kick. Why, for instance, do you drive over the speed limit? Are you really in that much of a hurry? Or is there some excitement in getting away with it?

    Link to this
  4. 4. jrkipling 11:34 am 07/13/2014

    Have you included allocution as part of the student exercise? Maybe you said so, and I didn’t read carefully enough.

    Huh! Bad scientists, whatcha want, whatcha want, watccha gonna do? (Apologies to Inner Circle) The drama teacher’s perspective on motivation is interesting to consider. I hadn’t thought of that point of view. All ethical lapses I’m aware of were kept as quiet as possible until discovered. I’m not sure there is scientist street cred gained by tainted research, but my experience is limited.

    It is heartening to know this is being taught.

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Dinosaurs

Get Total Access to our Digital Anthology

1,200 Articles

Order Now - Just $39! >

X

Email this Article

X