by In the past 400 years, a number of mostly unwritten guidelines have developed that should be done by the proper completion of science. The assumption in the research community is that science is most effective if scientists behave in a certain way.
The first person to write down these attitudes and behaviors was Robert Merton in 1942. The founder of science sociology explained what he described as “ethos of science”, a series of “values and norms that are binding for the man of science”. (Yes, it is sexist wording. Yes, it was the 1940s.) These are now referred to as scientific norms.
The point of these norms is that scientists should behave in a way that improves the collective promotion of knowledge. If you are a cynic, you may roll over such a pollyannaish ideal with your eyes. But kitschy expectations keep the world functional. Think: Be friendly, clear up your chaos, give the shopping cart back to the cart corrally.
I am a physical geographer who recognized a long time ago that the students are taught biology in biology lessons and chemistry in chemistry lessons, but they are rarely taught about the overarching concepts of science themselves. Therefore, I wrote a book entitled “The Scientific Efforts”, in which it was determined what scientists and other educated people should know about science themselves.
It is expected to learn the great picture of science in training after years of observing their mentors, but that doesn’t always happen. And understanding what drives scientists can help you to better understand the research results. These scientific norms are a large part of the scientific endeavor. Here are Merton’s original four, together with a couple that I think it is worth adding the list:
Universalism
Scientific knowledge is for everyone – it is universal – and not the area of a person or group. In other words, a scientific claim must be assessed according to your merits, not according to the person who makes it. Characteristics such as nationality, gender or the favorite sports team of a scientist should not have an impact on how their work is assessed.
Even the earlier recording of a scientist should have no influence on how to assess the claim that he is currently doing. For example, the chemist Linus Pauling, which was awarded the Nobel Prize, was able to convince most scientists that large doses of vitamin C are medically advantageous. His claim was not sufficiently supported by his evidence.
In practice, it is difficult to assess contradictory claims if you come from a “big name” on site to an unknown researcher without a reputation. However, it is easy to indicate such violations of universalism if others have scientific fame influenced their opinion in one way or another through new work.
communism
Communism in science is the idea that scientific knowledge is the property of all and has to be shared.
Jonas Salk, who led research that led to the polio vaccine, provides a classic example of this scientific standard. He published the work and did not patent the vaccine in such a way that it could be freely produced at low costs.
If scientific research has no direct commercial application, communism is easy to practice. When it comes to money, things get complicated. Many scientists may work for companies and may not publish their results to keep them away from competitors. The same applies to military research and cyber security, in which the knowledge of publication could help the evil.
Disinterestiality
Dis interest relates to the expectation that scientists mainly refer to their work for the further development of knowledge, not to promote an agenda or to become rich. The expectation is that a researcher will share the results of his work, regardless of the effects of a finding on his career or his economic end result.
Studies on politically hot topics such as vaccine security can be difficult to remain uninterested. Imagine a scientist who is strong pro-accine. If your results of vaccine research have a serious danger for children, the scientist is still obliged to share these results.
If a scientist has invested in a company that sells a medication and the research of the scientist shows that the drug is dangerous, they are morally forced to publish the work, even if this would affect their income.
When publishing research, scientists must also disclose all conflicts of interest in connection with work. This step informs others that you may want to be more skeptical when evaluating the work if self -interest has won because of the interest.
Dis interest also applies to magazine editors who are obliged to decide whether research is to publish on the basis of science, not on the political or economic effects.
Organized skepticism
Merton’s last standard is organized skepticism. Skepticism does not mean to reject ideas because they don’t like them. Being skeptical in science means being very critical and looking for weaknesses in a piece of research.
This concept is formalized in the peer review process. When a scientist submits an article in a diary, the publisher sends it to two or three scientists who are familiar with the topic used and the methods used. You read it carefully and indicate all the problems you find.
The editor then uses the reviews to decide whether this should be accepted, rejected or request revisions. When the decision is revised, the author provides every change or tries to convince the editor that the reviewer is wrong.
Peer Review is not perfect and does not always start bad research, but in most cases it improves work and useful advantages. Traditionally, the results were only published after the peer checked, but this practice has weakened in recent years with the rise of forms, which reduces the reliability of information for non -scientists.
Integrity and humility
I add two standards to Merton’s list.
The first is integrity. It is so fundamental to good science that it seems to be mentioned almost unnecessarily. But I think it has been justified since fraud, theft and lazy scientists get a lot of attention these days.
The second is humility. You may have made a contribution to our understanding of the cell division, but do not tell us that you have healed cancer. You may be a leader in quantum mechanics research, but that doesn’t make you authority for climate change.
Scientific norms are guidelines for how scientists are expected to behave. A researcher who violates one of these standards does not become prison or a fine of an exorbitant fee. However, if a standard is not followed, scientists must be willing to justify their reasons for both themselves and for others.
This article will be released from the conversation, a non -profit, independent news organization that brings you facts and trustworthy analyzes to help you understand our complex world. It was written by: Jeffrey A. Lee, Texas Tech University
Read more:
Jeffrey A. Lee does not work for a company or an organization that benefits from this article and have not published any relevant affiliations about their academic appointment.
