Ethics in Science: A Case Study

Through this case study I shall argue that Marc’s course of action should be to include the anomalous results in his presentation. I shall argue this by evaluating the situation with the ethical principles of Consequentialism (most notably Utilitarianism), Kantian ethics and the categorical imperative as well as looking at Karl Popper’s principle of falsification.
There are many factors that Marc must consider when confronting this dilemma. He is in a position where his perceived moral duties conflict with one another. For a start, he has a duty to his boss and to securing investment for the research. It is also possible that his last minute rush to perform the experiments was the result of his own incompetence and disorganization, in which case he may feel that he has to ‘make up’ for his inefficiency by doing as his boss asks. His supervisor is in a position of authority, and as such, Marc should accept his decision and abide by his rules. Seven out of ten results were identical, and that does seem to indicate that the three aberrations were simply a mistake due to a lack of time. And if Marc goes against his supervisor’s wishes, he runs the risk of losing his position. Is being honest worth the personal consequences?
There is also the question of what exactly Marc is experimenting on. If he is conducting medical research with a view to finding an aid or cure for a disease or medical condition, then he may feel his duty is to ensuring that this research is funded and carried out, as it may in the future yield very promising results with enough work.
Then there is also Marc’s duty to the venture capital people, and to giving them a faithful presentation. If they are to invest their money, they should be in possession of the full facts of what it is they are investing in, and this includes the fact that, as Marc’s supervisor stated, the conditions must be “perfect and everything just right” in order to gain identical results. This fact alone could have a bearing on the success of whatever it is that Marc and his supervisor are trying to achieve. To mislead potential investors by ignoring the aberrant results could be tantamount to tricking them out of their money.
The ethical principle of consequentialism is that the consequences of our actions should maximize the good for the greatest possible number. Generally, Utilitarianism views this ‘good’ as the greatest happiness or well-being for the greatest number of people. In Marc’s situation, it may seem that employing Utilitarian values entails ignoring the erroneous results in his presentation. Of course, this is assuming that his experiments are based on something that will benefit people overall and not, for example, testing the effectiveness of a certain strain of virus that could be used in biological warfare. If he ignores the errors, the venture capital people may be more likely to invest. Their subsequent investment could ensure that important research is carried out which could lead to benefits, not only for Marc, his supervisor and investors, but for a large number of other people as well. If he presents his findings honestly, they may lose out on investment and the benefits of extra research. It is important for Marc to realize, however, that, for whatever reason, these erroneous results did occur. It is lab protocol to combine the results to ensure reliability, and on doing this, he found his results unreliable. Lab protocol is there for a reason: there is little point in testing for reliability only to ignore those results that are unfavourable. He does not yet know whether this was simply a mistake, and that on re-running the tests he will receive more favourable results. If he ignores the aberrations in his presentation and acquires funding, but the results still do not match, this will result in an overall minimization of happiness and well-being, for him, his supervisor and the investors. However, if he explains to the venture capital people the possible reasons for the results, as his supervisor explained them to him, the investors will appreciate his honesty and will be able to make an informed decision. The reality of the situation is that Marc cannot be entirely sure of the consequences of his actions in the long term, so in order to maximize the ‘good’ in the short term, he should leave the three anomalous results in the presentation but do his best to explain them so that the potential investors are happy that they know what they are getting into.
This leads on to Kantian ethics and the categorical imperative. This principle states that we should never treat rational beings simply as a means to an end. Each person, as a rational being can employ their own reason to be able to follow the dictates of morality and the categorical imperative, and as rational beings ourselves, we should respect that. In this view, Marc should also be honest with the potential investors, as on seeing the real results of his experiments and hearing the explanation of why they might have gone astray, Marc is giving them, as rational beings, the opportunity to exercise their own moral judgment, rather than treating them as a means to getting what he and his supervisor may want. Kantian ethics does not agree with consequentialism, , Kant himself stating: “…nothing other than the representation of the law in itself, which can of course occur only in a rational being…can constitute the preeminent good we call moral.”This refers to the idea of following a moral maxim out of a sense of duty. In Marc’s case, the maxim he follows might be “always tell the truth.” If he subscribes to Kantian ethical guidelines, the consequences of this, for him, his supervisor or the research they want to carry out do not matter. What matters is that he upheld this moral law which attests to the fact that he is a rational and a moral being.
Following his duty is an important aspect of Marc’s dilemma. As a lab technician, he presumably has a duty to science and the scientific method. Working by Karl Popper’s principle of falsification, his results may show that the original hypothesis behind the experiments was, while being scientific, false. Although by this principle, nothing can be verified, at first glance it would appear that the hypothesis has been falsified by the three erroneous results. With a duty to the scientific method, he cannot simply ignore these results that disagree with the other seven. To do so would be to ignore the principles of scientific experiment that lead to progress and this would do a great disservice to not only, himself, his supervisor, the potential investors, the general public who may or may not benefit from the research, but to the practice of science itself.
Therefore, it seems that being dishonest and ignoring the aberrations would result in going against his duty to science and the scientific method, his moral duty to the venture capital people as rational beings and by virtue of this, he will certainly not maximize the good for all in the long run. By adhering to his supervisors wishes, he will go against several ethical principles as well as correct scientific practice. If every lab technician were to ignore slightly erroneous results when it did not suit their desires, then human civilization would not be able to progress as it has done and should continue to do. Therefore I would advise Marc to be as honest as possible when presenting to the venture capital people, to explain his results fully and the circumstances surrounding them, the fact that more tests would need to be carried out, and to remain positive about the potential benefits of the proposed research and experiments. Marc should also voice his doubts to his supervisor beforehand and explain what he thinks he should do. Although this may have awkward ramifications for Marc, the benefits of being clear about the tests should outweigh the personal friction.