About the last 400 years, the most unwritten set of unwritten guidelines has evolved on how to do the proper science. The premise of the research community is that science is most effective when scientists behave in a certain way.
The first person who wrote this attitude and behavior was Robert Merton in 1942. (Yes, it is a sexist wording. Yes, it was the 1940s.) Now it is called scientific desires.
The essence of these norms is that scientists should behave in such a way as to improve the collective development of knowledge. If you are a cynic, you may be pointing your eyes to such an ideal of Pollanannaish. But Corny’s expectations support the world. Think: Be nice, clean your mess, return your shopping cart to Cart Corral.
I am a physical geographer who has long realized that students are taught in biology classes and chemistry classes, but are rarely taught about the very scientific concepts themselves. So I wrote a book entitled “Scientific Efforts”, outlining what scientists and other educated people should know.
Teaching scientists are expected to learn a great picture of science after many years of observation of their mentors, but this does not always happen. And understanding of what encourages scientists can help you get a better understanding of research conclusions. These scientific norms are a large part of the scientific aspiration. Here are the original Merton four, along with the couple, I think it’s worth adding:
Universalism
Scientific knowledge is for everyone – it is universal – not a person or group area. In other words, the scientific statement must be considered on its merits, not the one who submits it. Characteristics such as a scientist’s nationality, gender or a favorite sports team should not affect their work assessment.
In addition, the earlier record of the scientist should not affect the way you evaluate any statement they currently submit. For example, Nobel laureate chemist Linus Pauling has failed to convince most scientists that high doses of vitamin C are medically beneficial; His evidence has not sufficiently confirmed his claim.
In practice, it is difficult to correctly evaluate contradictory statements when they come from a “big name” field compared to an unknown investigator who has no reputation. However, it is easy to specify such violations of universalism when others allowed scientific glory to direct their opinion on a new job in one way or another.
Communism
Communism of science is the idea that scientific knowledge is the feature of everyone and must be shared.
John Salk, who led the research that caused the polio vaccine, gives a classic example of this scientific norm. He released the work and did not get into the vaccine so that it could be freely produced at a low price.
When research has no direct commercial application, communism is easy to practice. But when the money is related, everything becomes difficult. Many scientists work in corporations, and they may not publish their conclusions to distract them from competitors. The same goes for military research and cybersecurity where publishing findings could help bad guys.
No interest
Understanding is the belief that scientists seek most of their work to improve their knowledge, not to encourage or enrich the agenda. The researcher is expected to share the results of his work, despite the consequences of the conclusion of their career or economic field.
Studies on politically hot topics such as vaccine safety are where it can be difficult to remain uninterested. Imagine a scientist who is severely proactic. If the results of their vaccine research show a serious risk of children, the scientist must still share these findings.
Similarly, if a scientist has invested in a drug -selling company and research shows that the drug is dangerous, they are morally forced to publish work, even if it would harm their income.
In addition, researchers must disclose any work -related conflicts of interest when publishing research. This step informs others that they may want to be more skeptical about work if it goes without saying that it is self -evident.
The lack of interest also applies to magazine editors who must decide whether to publish research based on science rather than political or economic consequences.
Organized skepticism
The last rate of Merton is organized skepticism. Skepticism does not mean rejection of ideas because you do not like them. Skeptical evaluation of science needs to be very critical and look for flaws in the part of the research.
This concept is formalized in the process of mutual review. When the scientist submits an article in a magazine, the editor sends it to two or three scientists who are familiar with the topic and methods used. They read carefully and indicate all the problems they find.
The editor then uses the commentator reports to decide whether to accept the way they are, to be openly rejected or requested. If the decision is reviewed, the author makes each change or tries to convince the editor that the reviewer is wrong.
Reviewing peers is not perfect and does not always choose bad research, but in most cases it improves work and scientific benefits. Traditionally, the results have not been made public after a review, but in recent years, this practice has weakened pre -prints and reduces the reliability of information to opaque.
Integrity and humility
I add two rates to the Merton list.
The first is integrity. This is very important for good science that almost no mention is needed. But I think this is justified because they get a lot of attention these days.
The second is humility. You may have contributed to our understanding of cell fragmentation, but don’t tell us that you have cured cancer. You may be the leader of Quantum Mechanics research, but this does not make your authority climate change authority.
Scientific norms are guidelines as scientists are expected to behave. The investigator who violates one of these norms will not be referred to prison or will be fined for a high tax. However, when the norm is not met, scientists must be prepared to justify their causes for themselves and others.
This article has been published from a conversation, non -profit, independent news organizations that provide you with facts and reliable analysis to help you give meaning to our complex world. It wrote this: Jeffrey A. Lee, Texas Technical University
Read more:
Jeffrey A. Lee is not working, consulting, having funds of any company or organization, or receiving funds for which this article would benefit, and has not disclosed any important dependents on their academic appointment.