Over the past 400 years or so, a set of unwritten guidelines has developed for how to properly do science. The assumption in the research community is that science progresses more effectively when scientists behave themselves in certain ways.
He was the first person to write these situations and behaviors Robert MertonIn 1942. Founder Sociology Set what was called “”Science spirit“A group of“ values and standards that are considered binding on the scienceman. ”(Yes, it is a sexual formulation. Yes, it was in the 1940s). This is now referred to as scientific standards.
The goal of these rules is that scientists must behave in ways of improving collective progress of knowledge. If you are sarcastically, your eyes may roll over such an ideal. But slow expectations keep the world working. Think: Be nice, clean the chaos, and return the shopping cart to the coral cart.
I am a physical geography that has long realized that students are studying biology in biology and chemistry seasons in the seasons of chemistry, but they rarely study the comprehensive concepts of the sciences themselves. So I wrote a book entitled “Scientific endeavor“Putting what scientists and other learners should know about the science itself.
Scientists are expected to learn in training the big picture of science after years of monitoring their mentors, but this does not always happen. Understanding what drives scientists can help scientists better understand research results. These scientific standards are a large part of the scientific endeavor. Here are the original four of the MERTON, along with a couple I think it is worth adding to the list:
Inclusiveness
Scientific knowledge for all – it is universal – not an individual or group field. In other words, a scientific claim must be judged based on its advantages, and not the person he makes. Properties such as the nationality of the world, sex, or the favorite sports team should not affect how to judge their work.
Also, the previous record of the world should not affect how to judge any claim they currently submit. For example, the Nobel Prize -winning Linos Bolling was unable to persuade most scientists that large doses of vitamin C are medically beneficial; His evidence He did not support enough of his claim.
In practice, it is difficult to judge contradicting contradictory claims when it comes from a “big name” in this field in exchange for an unknown researcher without reputation. However, it is easy to refer to these comprehensive violations when others leave scientific fame to influence their opinion in one way or another about a new work.
Communism
Communism in science is the idea that scientific knowledge is for everyone and must be shared.
Jonas Salik, who led the research This has led to a polio vaccine, and provides a classic example of this scientific rule. The work has been published and did not penetrate the vaccine so that it can be produced freely at a low cost.
When scientific research does not have a direct commercial application, communism is easy to practice. When the money is involved, however,, Things become complicated. Many scientists work in companies, and they may not publish their results in order to keep them away from competitors. The same applies to military research and cybersecurity, as the results of the bad publishing can help.
Lack of attention
Lack of attention indicates that scientists will follow their work mainly to advance knowledge, not to progress a agenda or become rich. The expectation is that the researcher will participate in the results of their work, regardless of the effects of the discovery on his career or the final economic result.
Research on hottops politically, such as the safety of the vaccine, is the place where it may be difficult to remain not interested. Imagine a strongly supportive world. If the results of vaccine research indicate a serious danger to children, the world is still obligated to share these results.
Likewise, if the world has invested in a company that sells a drug, and the world’s research shows that the drug is dangerous, it is morally obliged to spread the work even if it will harm its income.
In addition, when publishing research, scientists must detect any Conflict Concerning work. This step tells others that they may want to be more doubtful about evaluating work, in the event that the self -interest wins lack of attention.
Lack of attention as well Apply to magazines editorsThose who need to determine whether research should be published based on science, not political or economic effects.
Organized doubts
Morton’s last rule is organized doubts. Doubts do not mean rejecting ideas because you do not like them. To be skeptical in science is to be very crucial and search for weaknesses in research.
The official nature has been added to this concept in Lids review practical. When the world presents an article to a magazine, the editor sends it to two or three scholars familiar with the subject and methods used. They read it carefully and point to any problems they find.
Then the editor uses reference reports to determine whether it will be accepted as it is, rejecting reviews or requesting. If the decision is reviewed, the author makes every change or tries to persuade the editor that the auditor is wrong.
Poilizers are not perfect and do not always embody bad research, but in most cases, work improves, and the benefits of science. Traditionally, the results have not been published beyond the peer review, but this practice has weakened in recent years With the appearance of the mardsReducing the reliability of information for scientists.
Integrity and humility
I add two powers to the Merton menu.
The first is integrity. It is so essential for good science that it seems unpredictable. But I think it is justified since then Fraud, theft and lazy scholars They get a lot of attention these days.
The second is humility. You may have made a contribution to our understanding of the division of cells, but do not tell us that you have recovered cancer. You may be a pioneer in quantum mechanics research, but this does not make you salad in climate change.
Scientific standards are guidelines for how scientists expect. The researcher who violates one of these criteria will not be transferred to prison or fined exorbitant fees. But when the standard is not followed, scientists must be ready to justify their causes, for themselves and others.
This article has been republished from ConversationAn independent, non -profit news organization brings you facts and trusted analysis to help you understand our complex world. Written by: Jeffrey Leeand Texas University of Technology
Read more:
Jeffrey A. Lee does not work in favor of, consulting or has funding from any company or institution that will benefit from this article, and has not revealed any related affiliations that exceed its academic appointment.
