By Stephen C. Taylor, Director
The Ethics Resource Site
Delaware State University

Researchers in the natural sciences have moral obligations in at least three fundamental areas: to science as an academic endeavor, to the source(s) of funding for scientific research, and to society at large.

The moral obligation to science as an academic endeavor is such that accuracy and objectivity are essential both in the conducting of the research itself and in the reporting of the experimental data that the research produces.  It can be argued that there are distinctions to be made between the blatant falsification of experimental data, for example, in order to achieve a desired or expected outcome, and the skewing or tweaking of the data in more minor ways.  However, to engage in either of these practices is to demonstrate a selfish disregard for the scientific method as the cornerstone of natural science.

The moral obligation to the source(s) of funding for scientific research, whether private or public, entails a fiduciary responsibility to use such funds for the purposes for which they were provided as well as an obligation to provide a return on the investment.  Given that scientific researchers must compete for funding, there is a sense in which each and every research dollar must be wisely spent because for every research project that receives such funding, there are many more that cannot go forward due to a lack of funding.  However, never should a scientific researcher’s moral obligations to a funding source compromise in any way the researcher’s adherence to the objective standards of the scientific method.

Finally, the moral obligation to society at large is such that the members of society have reasonable expectations of honesty with respect to advances in scientific research.  It goes without saying that advances in scientific research eventually have, not only a direct application to the day-to-day lives of people in societies around the globe, but also an important and relevant impact on the quality of those lives.  Although the consequences of scientific research are sometimes unforeseeable, the potential for threats to human or environmental well being should be carefully considered at every stage of the research process.  Potential health or environmental threats might conflict with the potential benefits that result from scientific research, which raises questions of conflicting moral obligations that demand to be addressed in as fair and equitable a way as possible.  Furthermore, corporate or governmental funding of scientific research sometimes mandates a vow of secrecy concerning the research project itself, perhaps the experimental data that result from the research, and sometimes even that which is produced by the research project.  To the extent that any part of such a research project might represent a risk to society-at-large, once again, questions of conflicting moral obligations are raised.

Scientific organizations frequently adopt a code of ethics. To view an example, download the PDF file of the Code of Ethics of the American Society for Microbiology.

Check out the Science, Ethics, and Public Policy Program at the University of Delaware, which has its roots in the Delaware Interdisciplinary Ethics Program.

Learn more about the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, a world leader in bioethics research and its applications in the life sciences and medicine.

The National Human Genome Research Institute of the National Institutes of Health offers on-line bioethics resources.