Ethics Today
Events of the last few years in business, science, publishing, education, and other domains have created more interest in ethics. The U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy issued Federal Policy on Research Misconduct in January 2001. It states that “research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.” The problem is the interpretation of these words. Researchers have an increasing burden of concern about what they mean. New regulations are now being considered.
Falsification by Omission Is Not Acceptable. In my research, I find many definitions of the scientific method. This one impressed me, as it hints at the reason we have had so many disasters in the field of education and other social sciences. The following, written by Dr. Art Robinson, appeared in the newsletter Access to Energy (January 2002):
“Beyond this, the scientific method is very simple: Every hypothesis or theory is meritorious only so far as it passes experimental test; all experimental evidence must be considered without omission; all results - experimental, semi-empirical, and theoretical - must be communicated with complete honesty; falsehoods - including falsehoods of omission - are not acceptable.”
In my research and crusade for the scientific method, I have constantly noticed that one of the worst things is the “falsehood of omission.” When you examine what has happened in the social sciences, it is usually obvious that the various stages of the scientific method (SM-14) have not been followed either completely or to a proper degree. The falsehood of omission is far too common. In selective reporting, omission, and structured silence, it is often the case that no one has lied, but other researchers and the public have been misled, with possible important consequences.
Ignoring contrary evidence has also been termed “cooking” by Charles Babbage (1791 to 1871), sometimes called the “Father of Computing.” He defined “cooking” as retaining only those results that fit the theory and discarding others (from Honor in Science, 1986, published by Sigma Xi).
The National Board for Education Sciences is currently reviewing what advice to give to U.S. Department of Education’s Director of the Institute of Education Sciences. It is important that this advice include holding educational researchers to a code of eithics that includes not ignoring contrary evidence.
