Why “Dr. Free-Ride”?

Longtime readers of the previous incarnation of this blog knew me as “Dr. Free-Ride”. Most of them, however, never asked where that pseudonym came from. As it happens, the source of the pseudonym was a class discussion (in my “Ethics in Science” course) that, by its very liveliness, inspired me to start the blog in the first place.
The class discussion was about whether those with scientific training are morally obligated to practice science. Some (like Kristin Shrader-Frechette, in her book Ethics of Scientific Research) have argued that trained scientists have a positive duty to do scientific research because:

  • society has paid for the training the scientists have received (through federal funding of research projects, training programs, etc.)
  • society has pressing needs that can best (only?) be addressed if scientific research is conducted
  • those few members of society who have specialized skills that are needed to address particular societal needs have a duty to use those skills to address those needs (i.e., if you can do research and most other people can’t, then to the extent that society as a whole needs the research that you can do, you ought to do it)

It’s an interesting claim to examine with a classroom of science majors. How do you suppose it went over?
Since it was early in the term and I was still working to break the ice — to get the class past polite discussion and into the ring to wrestle with the claims they were reading — I decided that it was only fair to put myself up as a test-case. Am I a bum — a free-rider — by virtue of having scientific training but living the life of a philosopher? That self-examination was the very first post of the original “Adventures in Ethics and Science”, which I reproduce in its entirety below the fold.

Continue reading

Science’s neighborhood watch

The commenters here at ScienceBlogs are da bomb! Just look at the insight they contributed to my previous post on fakery in science. Indeed, let’s use some of that insight to see if we can get a little bit further on the matter of how to discourage scientists from making it up rather than, you know, actually doing good science.
Three main strategies emerged from the comments so far:

  • Make the potential payoff of cheating very low compared to the work involved in getting away with it and the penalty you’ll face if caught (thus, making just doing good science the most cost-effective strategy).
  • Clear out the deadwood in the community of science (who are not cheating to get Nobel prizes but instead to get tenure so they can really slack off).
  • Make academic integrity and intellectual honesty important from the very beginning of scientific training (in college or earlier), so scientists know how to “get the job done” without cheating.

I like all of these, and I think it’s worth considering whether there are useful ways to combine them with one of the fraud-busting strategies mentioned in the previous post, namely, ratting out your collaborator/colleague/underling/boss if you see them breaking the rules. I’m not advocating a McCarthyite witch hunt for fakers, but something more along the lines of a neighborhood watch for the community of science.

Continue reading

Are fakers outliers or bellwethers?

Well, the new digs here at ScienceBlogs have thin walls (GrrlScientist, will you please turn down that stereo!), which means that sometimes we get sucked into the conversations our neighbors are having. And, almost as if this were the complex at Melrose Place (shut up!), a lot of us have been chattering about the same people, notably Hwang Woo Suk.
So, for example, I’ve been hearing Chris Mooney telling his guests that, peer review or no peer review, the community of scientists will always include some fakers. Through the air-vent, I’ve got PZ Myers musing on how detection (or not) of the fakers could be connected to how well-established or cutting-edge the faked research seems to be.
As it happens, I’ve always taken thin walls as an excuse to poke my head into a conversation, so here’s my take on fakers and the mechanisms within the tribe of science for dealing with them.

Continue reading

Women, science, and blogs: some more thoughts.

Thanks to all the commenters on the last post that raised, in a somewhat half-assed way, the question of what — if anything — we should make of the gender (im)balance of the pool of bloggers on the science beat. To paraphrase Homer Simpson, I’m not sure I have enough data and insight yet to use my whole ass on this topic, but the comments have given me enough to start pressing the second cheek into service.
The follow-up questions I’d like to take up today to the original question (“where are the women science bloggers?”) are:

  • Who cares?/Why should it matter who’s writing the blog?
  • What counts as a science blog anyway, and does that change the way the gender distribution looks?
  • Are the rewards and risks of writing science blogs different for women and men?
  • What kind of audience are science bloggers (or various sorts) trying to reach?

It goes with out saying that there are many more issues we could tease out here. This list reflects what I’m up for today; the details are below the fold.

Continue reading

Pre-emptive strike at the “where are the women?” question

Regular blog readers are familiar with the rule of thumb that every three months or so there will be another outbreak of blog posts wondering where all the women are. Clancy at Culture Cat provides and extensive list of links to discussions of this question up to March 2005; I’m not sure this data supports the hypothesis of a three month period for the cycle, but then again, Clancy acknowledges that the list is not complete. The point is, the issue seems to come up a lot.
There have been numerous hypotheses floated to explain the apparent absence of women bloggers (in terms of “visibility” if not actual numbers among the population that blogs). Some of these have been plausible, while others have … well, let’s say they’ve inspired some righteously indignant responses from a number of women who blog. Believe it or not, there have even been some explanations based on research (whoa!). For example, Women and Children Last: The Discursive Construction of Weblogs. Here’s a quick overview from their introduction:

An initial consideration of the demographics of blog authors reveals an apparent paradox. Quantitative studies report as many (or more, depending on what one counts as a blog) female as male blog authors, and as many (or more) young people as adults (Henning, 2003; Orlowski, 2003), suggesting a diverse population of bloggers as regards gender and age representation. At the same time, as will be shown, contemporary discourses about weblogs, such as those propagated through the mainstream media, in scholarly communication, and in weblogs themselves, tend to disproportionately feature adult, male bloggers. This inconsistency led us to ask: what are the actual demographics of blog authors, determined according to what criteria? If significant numbers of female and teen bloggers exist, how can their relative absence from public discourses about weblogs be explained?
In this essay, we draw on methods of content analysis to establish both sides of the paradox, and advance an explanation for it. Specifically, we propose that the apparent gender and age bias in contemporary discourses about weblogs arises in part as a result of focus on a particular blog type, the so-called “filter” blog, which is produced mostly by adult males. We argue that by privileging filter blogs and thereby implicitly evaluating the activities of adult males as more interesting, important and/or newsworthy than those of other blog authors, public discourses about weblogs marginalize the activities of women and teen bloggers, thereby indirectly reproducing societal sexism and ageism, and misrepresenting the fundamental nature of the weblog phenomenon. We conclude by advocating a broader characterization of weblogs that takes into account the activities of a majority of blog authors, and more research on weblogs produced by women and teens.

In a nutshell: The blogs that get most of the fanfare (whether by way of media attention or links from “A-list” bloggers) are “filter” type blogs — blogs that focus on world events, online happenings, and such, and that typically include lots of links. Less attention is paid to “journal” type blogs or “k(nowledge)-log” type blogs. The gender distribution is such that more of the “filter” bloggers are male than female. (It turns out that the “journal” is the most common type of blog with female and male bloggers.) Ways blog authors contribute to entrenching the hierarchies among bloggers, yadda yadda.
What caught my eye in this article, however, was that of the (admittedly small) number of k-logs in the study, not one of them was authored by a woman.

Continue reading

Humane treatment of scientists

While folks are often attentive to the harms scientists might do to other people (through unethical treatment of human subjects, or toxic dumping, or whatever), they seem not to worry so much about scientist-on-scientist cruelty. I’m not talking about having your boss in the lab force you to donate ova or anything. In fact, the kind of cruelty I have in mind today is much harder to pin on individual actors. Rather, it’s a sort of cruelty that seems to be built into the institutional structures of science.
Which, for the scientist, kind of sucks.

Continue reading

A quick tour through the vault.

Because some of you may be new to “Adventures in Ethics and Science” (having found it by way of the high-powered company I’m keeping here at ScienceBlogs), and because a lot of the cool kids here are doin’ it, I thought I’d give you a quick run-down of some of my archived posts. A few of these are big-traffic posts via search engine results, while others are posts that are dear to my heart (the “unsung heroes” of the archives). It’s my hope that these will give you a taste of some of the issues in ethics and science that seize my hands and make me blog.
Of course, I’m always happy to entertain requests, so if there’s an ethics-and-science issue you don’t see here but would like to, just give a holler!

Continue reading

Please don’t call that philosophy!

Here in California, I had hoped we might be safe from the high school Intelligent Design follies playing out in other states. Turns out, not so much.
Frazier Mountain High School in Lebec, California, part of the El Tejon Unified School District, offered a class called “Philosophy of Design” which has prompted a lawsuit from the parents of 13 students arguing that the course violates the separation of church and state.

“The course was designed to advance religious theories on the origins of life, including creationism and its offshoot, ‘intelligent design,'” the suit said. “Because the teacher has no scientific training, students are not provided with any critical analysis of this presentation.”

I don’t want to take up the merits of the lawsuit on the separation of church and state, in part because I know others are doing that even now as I type. Instead, I’m going to get worked up about the claim that the class in question is at all respectable as a philosophy course.

Continue reading

Using unethical means to expose unethical conduct.

An interesting piece of the Korean stem cell fiasco that escaped my notice the first time around is that the Korean investigative television program, “PD Notebook,” that exposed the faking of photographs for the now-discredited Science article did so using techniques that violated journalistic ethics.
Take a moment to let that sink in.
Here’s a lab that is reporting what looks to be great success with cutting edge scientific research. Then Choi Seung Ho, producer of “PD Notebook,” gets an anonymous email from someone who claims to be a member of Hwang Woo-suk’s laboratory, claiming that Hwang faked data in the Science paper. A good investigative journalist wants to get to the bottom of this to find out whether the stunningly successful research group really is stunningly successful or whether its fame rests on a pile of falsified data.
So, you have to talk to some of Hwang’s co-workers, right? The question of journalistic ethics turns on how you talk to them. Here’s what James Brooke writes (in the International Herald Tribune):

Continue reading

Working to do human subjects research right.

Today, some news that makes me smile (and not that bitter, cynical smile): UCSF has announced that it has received full accreditation for its program to protect research participants from the Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs (AAHRPP).
This is a voluntary accreditation — nothing the federal government requires, for example — that undoubtedly required a great deal of work from UCSF investigators and administrators to obtain. (AAHRPP describes the process as including a preliminary self-assessment, followed by appropriate modifications of your institutions human subject protection program, preparation of a detailed written application, an on-site evaluation of your program by a team of experts, and review of these materials by the AAHRPP council on accreditation.) Here’s what the UCSF news report has to say about the process:

Continue reading