Ethics in Scientific Journals - Essay Example

Science and Ethics Ethics is one of the defining factors in both the corporate world, and the society in general. Ethics is the seam that holds the society in place. Ethics comes in fronts. According to Rollin (46), ethics can be defined from many fronts. In journalism, ethics is defined by truthfulness of the message, the manner of reporting and the timeliness of the message. The message should be truthful and very clear without any misleading information. The manner of reporting should be professional, always ensuring the right graphics are used. The report should be timely. It should not be released at a time that would cause any disunity within the society. Ethics is very important in scientific journals. It is very important to note that when reporting any scientific information, care should be exercised. Over the recent past, scientific journals have gained a lot of popularity. Currently, there are journals for scientific research, where scientific researchers would publish their reports, especially those that are either urgent, or not large enough to make a book. There are occasions where scientific research is reported in the main media channels. It is very important to ensure that when reporting scientific information, correctness is maintained. This would ensure that any misleading information is eliminated; hence they do not reach the masses. Whether published in the scientific journals or main mass media, there would always be a review done to ensure that ethics, among other factors are maintained in the report. This report seeks to investigate the importance of reviewing scientific journals before they are published in the scientific journals to ensure correctness and eliminate any misleading statements i. Appropriateness of Scientist Reviewing Media Reports About their Studies and Work in Correcting Misleading Statements Scientific reports, unlike other reports, are having greater impact. Rollin (12) says that scientific reports are depended upon by many professionals for application in various fields. The reports are always subjected to peer review because of the consequences with which they have when misinterpreted. Aristotle (23) says that scientific journals would be peer reviewed before publication to ensure that any misleading information is completely eliminated. This scholar gives an example of a medical report. The world has witnessed emergence of many new health complications that have necessitated research. Some of the existing stubborn diseases like HIV/AIDs have also called for scientific research to unravel the mystery behind them. When a report about such diseases is made, medics would always rely on them to in their normal duties. This is an issue about someone’s life. If any information is given about them, then it would be putting the lives of many people at risk. This will not only be a criminal offence, but also a very unethical term. The same is the case with other professionals like engineering because the consequence would result in bodily harm. Unlike political reports that are always full of speculations, scientific reports would not always sustain any speculations. There are no rumors in a medical report. The report must be precise and without any form of doubt. If there is need for further research because some parts of the research are not conclusive, it should be made clear so that this part needs further research. As such, any person using this material would know that the research is not conclusive in other sections. When applied, the person would know that the material is not conclusive and therefore would know the limits within which the report would be valid Scientist should therefore keenly review media reports about their studies and work to correct any misleading statements. It is a common phenomenon that journalists would be interested in reporting various facts about scientific research. This is especially the case when the scientific research is about sensitive issues. It is important to note that not all journalists would maintain ethics. They would want to report any issue that would be of public interest, even if the report has not been made conclusive. As Lehrer (56) says, some journalists are led by greed in their reporting. They would want to make as much profits as would be possible from their research, by publishing reports that appear to be controversial. In such cases, ethics would always be thrown in the wind. They would report some works that have not been concluded by the scientists. In some cases, they would report on scientists studies without due approval. When this research reaches the media and are consequently published, those who would read it would take it as a publication of the scientist. Because of the trust the scientist could have gained in the past due to valid reports given previously, many would be tempted to trust the report. If this report has not been reviewed by the concerned scientist- and it could have contained some errors- the errors the public. This would have a series of effects both to the publisher, the scientist concerned, and the whole fraternity of researchers in this field. To the publisher, they would suffer some mistrust from the public. The public would issues with it because they failed to maintain ethics, and therefore did not verify the information before making it public. To the scientist concerned, he or she shall have lost trust with the scientists board in his field because of the negative image painted to the whole fraternity. Rollin says that “the human use of human being” is wrong, especially if it is based on selfishness (1). He may be fined for misleading the public. The plea that he or she was not give opportunity to review the publication may not make sense. He or she may also face some consequences from the board concerned or from the government, especially when the report had a serious negative effect to the society. To the board, when a misleading report is published in the media because it was not reviewed, other reports by other board members would not be trusted. The credibility of the body would forever remain questionable. In view of the board’s activities, this would be detrimental. Consequently, a scientist should thoroughly review media reports about their studies or work to ensure that any misleading information is eliminated. If done this way, such reports would have the message that the concerned scientist would have expected the public to have. It would maintain credibility to the scientist, to his or her entire board of scientist and even to the concerned media. The public would always have access to the right information. ii. The Person Responsible for what is Reported in the Popular Press Aristotle (45) said, “the bark would always lie somewhere.” If it happens that any scientific report made public through the media has a consequence, a person or a body must take responsibility for it. Under a normal circumstance, a number of individuals would have to take the responsibility for it. The first body that would have to take the responsibility is the media. It would take responsibility for failure to ensure that the report is reviewed. The media would be responsible for lack of ethics in reporting by publishing a scientific report without reviewing by the concerned scientist. They would not only loose public credibility, but may also be subjected to some punitive measures by concerned bodies if proven that they acted out irresponsibly. The board of scientist which the scientist could be belonging may not be subjected to harsh measures for lack of ethics by one of their members. However, their image would be tainted. The scientist who let out the report to the media would also be responsible. Lehrer (57) says, “For any piece of information to reach the media, the information must have had a genesis from someone.” The scientist would escape the responsibility if the media reported his or her works in general terms, but not the actual report compiled by him or her. If the media reports the actual work, then he or she would need to explain how this report reached the media. If he voluntarily delivered the work to the media, or the report reached the media through his carelessness in handling information, then he would have to take the responsibility for it. Otherwise, the responsibility would lie with the media that released the report. Works Cited Aristotle. The Nicomachean Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print. Lehrer, Keith. Science and Ethics. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1987. Print. Rollin, Bernard . Science And Ethics. London: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Print.   Read More