Bioethics Author(s) : Lawrence Koehler Source: Bios, Vol. 68, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), Pp. 137-141 Published By: Stable URL: Accessed: 17/06/2014 11:06
Bioethics Author(s) : Lawrence Koehler Source: Bios, Vol. 68, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), Pp. 137-141 Published By: Stable URL: Accessed: 17/06/2014 11:06
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Beta Beta Beta Biological Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Bios.
http://www.jstor.org
Bioethics
BYLAWRENCEKOEHLER,PhD
Professor of Biology, Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, MI
48859
education), but when one cheats as a biologist they are also doing
harm to science and to their discipline as biologists.
I believe that most biologists and scientists do not intentionally
commit fraud in their scientific endeavors, however it is evident that
the number of reported cases of fraud in science has increased in
recent years. Even though these cases implicate a very small percent
of the members of the scientific community, they tend to degrade the
confidence that the general public has in science.
Scientific fraud (misconduct) can be divided into two broad cat-
egories for consideration. The first I will call scientific negligence
and will consider this to be those instances where scientists have
provided erroneous information, but have not set out with the intent
to defraud. The scientist has no premeditated plans to be dishonest,
but the researcher is human and having human faults, may have
poorly designed the experiment (e.g., lack of necessary controls)
which may be the cause of the faulty information. A biologist devel-
oping a career is often under pressure to publish (we sometimes use
the expression "publish or perish") and to publish quickly, thus the
experiment may not have been repeated adequately.
The second category of scientific fraud I will call deliberate dis-
honesty and will include those instances in which a scientist does
acts he or she knows are wrong, generally for self-interest. Included
are acts such as forged or fabricated data, falsified or invented re-
sults, plagiarism, hoaxes, and other malicious acts. In recent years,
we have observed a number of such acts of deliberate dishonesty in
the scientific literature. As a result of these reports, the U.S. Gov-
ernment has held numerous hearings concerned with fraud in sci-
ence and who should "police" the actions of scientists.
Many news reports have recently focused on ethical concerns in
science and medicine. There is an increase in the number of publi-
cations devoted to bioethical issues, as well as a number of sites on
the World Wide Web where resources are available on topics con-
cerning bioethics. Why the increasing concern for bioethics? Are
there really any new concerns or just new applications of previously
expressed concerns? Perhaps the increased interest is a result of the
development of new technologies in research and medicine which
allow us to "manipulate" the processes of life; or perhaps the con-
cern is because of a number of high profile cases of scientific fraud
in the news. Perhaps we also are more aware of the value of scientific
knowledge to researchers and to society.
Do our concerns arise from a consideration of right vs wrong or
from a fear of the application of the scientific information? Not many
years ago, there was great concern for the modification of the genome
of a microorganism. Fear of the possibility of making a super bug
seemed to be one of the major concerns, while others were con-
cerned with the concept of introducing genetic material from one
Literature Cited
American Medical Association (1848) Code or Medical Ethics: Adopted by the Ameri-
can Medical Association at Philadelphia. May, 1847 and by the New York Acad-
emy of Medicine in October, 1847. New York: H. Ludwig.
American Medical Association (1992) Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs. Current
Opinions of the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs. Chicago: American Medi-
cal Association.
Edelstein, Ludwig (1967) "The Hippocratic Oath: Text, Translation and Interpreta-
tion." In Ancient Medicine: Selected Papers of Ludwig Edelstein. edited by Owsei
Temkin and C. Lilian Temkin, 3-64. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
Gregory, John (1817) Lectures on the Duties and Qualifications of a Physician. Phila-
delphia: M. Carey & Son.
Percival, Thomas (1927) Percival's Medical Ethics. 1803. Reprint. Edited by Chauncey
D. Leake. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
Wilmut, I., A. E. Schnieke, J. McWhir, A. J. Kinde, & K. H. S. Campbell (1997) Viable
offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature 385:810-813.