Ethics In The Scientific Community

Researching scientific ethics was interesting, frustrating, and entertaining. While I understand the need to have ethics within the scientific community because so much relies on each person’s work being credible and having integrity, I am having trouble understanding why people believe that scientists are any different than the rest of the world. (Unreliable Research) They are human with needs, wants, thoughts, and behaviors that are governed by approval, money, fame, and all the other things EVERY human seeks. I applaud the scientific community for their amazing contributions to the acceleration and betterment of life, and I understand the need to improve constantly; however, I think the board, that governs the association, which looks …show more content…
I can imagine that the road to delivering those things was plagued with failures, ethical missteps, and fallacy; however, we still received the amazing successes of this unique element. Peer-review is a self-governing process that helps to ensure accuracy, and to keep the ethics of the scientific community on par with expectations; however, it is fallible based on human error. (Smith) Whether the error is intentional or not is irrelevant, it is only as perfect as the person, or people, conducting the review. Statistical review boards to ensure analytical accuracy of the data is an amazing tool that allows analysis of statistical data to be done by people who are gifted in the numbers department. This makes a lot of sense because I wouldn’t call on my accountant to fix my toilet any more than I would expect a gifted biologist to pay attention to the numbers over the science (McNutt). eTBLAST was an enlightening read, and I appreciate the developers intention; scientific and medical jargon is frightening. My only concern with this particular tool is the time component. Running the analyses is time consuming, and then double-checking by “eye” is another step …show more content…
It will mean more data and research in the “fact checking” phase, and less data output for others to utilize. Isn’t the nature of science about fact checking each other with further experimentation and research, new theories and hypotheses to prove someone wrong? I believe each of these systems will create a more honest science, but will never be perfect because of the human administration; however, I think it will slow down the process to a point of discouragement for most people, and will allow too many people control of what happens and who deserves to be called out. The science will be better regulated and controlled, but the addition of more “system” opposes the creativity of the scientific community. If each person held themselves responsible and accountable to fact check and research before they attach their name to something, the integrity of the scientific community would be intact and they would have what they need to move forward in their own