An Oath for Scientists

[DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in my posts are personal opinions, and they do not reflect the editorial policy of Social Psychological and Personality Science or its sponsoring associations, which are responsible for setting editorial policy for the journal.] 

i've been thinking a lot about what it means to be a scientist.  being a scientist comes with certain obligations, and ignoring those obligations can give science a bad name.  it seems to me we could do more to make scientists aware of this responsibility when they decide whether or not to join the profession.

our most important obligation as scientists, to my mind, is preserving science's credibility. that doesn't mean we can't make mistakes, but above all else, we should be committed to opening ourselves up to scrutiny and correcting our errors.

to make these values a bit more concrete, i tried to adapt the hippocratic oath to scientists. you can tell how solemn this oath is by the use of capitalization.

the values i tried to capture were inspired by Merton's norms, but in the spirit of Merton's norm of universalism, i refrained from naming the oath after him (or anyone). it is very far from comprehensive, and i know it's cheesy, but i ask you, dear reader: if you can't engage in a little facile sentimentality on new year's day, when can you? 

 

An Oath for Scientists 

I swear that I will, according to my ability and judgment, protect the credibility of science by carrying out this oath and this indenture.

To make the grounds for my scientific claims transparent and available for others to scrutinize, to welcome that scrutiny and accept that others will be skeptical of my claims, to help others verify the soundness of my claims; to describe my methods in sufficient detail for others to repeat them, to not obstruct others' attempts to replicate my work; to report all evidence I know of for or against my claim, to not suppress evidence against my conclusions, to correct my past claims if I learn that they were wrong, to support the dissemination of evidence that disconfirms or contradicts my past claims.

I will hold myself and all other scientists to this oath, and I will not exempt any scientist because of her status or reputation. I will judge scientific claims based on the evidence, not the scientist making the claim. Neither will I hold any scientific claim or finding as sacred. Similarly, I will recognize as valuable the work of scientists who aim to correct errors in the scientific record.  

In whatever claims I present in my role as scientist, I will not knowingly overstate or exaggerate the evidence, I will not make claims out of interest for advancing my own station, and I will disclose any personal interest that may be perceived as biasing my judgment.  I will protect the credibility of my profession by making careful, transparent, calibrated claims.

Now if I carry out this oath, and break it not, may I gain for ever reputation among all scientists for my work; but if I transgress it and forswear myself, may the opposite befall me.

 

Comments

[Lee Jussim]

If "civility" warrants an online petition with signatories, given that civility is relevant to the interpersonal, personal, moral, and social sensibilities of scientists but not to the conduct, openness, interpretation, or validity of the actual science itself, then this certainly does.

This post is inspiring. I am delighted to find myself in the position of being the first, however unofficial, signatory.

Lee Jussim

[Rob MacCoun]

For a less sweeping (more timid?) aspiration, see the "epistemic contract":

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-16151-8_9

Happy New Year!

[Steve Lindsay]

Well said!
Steve

[Scott wagner]

That's a long contract! A bit daunting how much longer it is than the scout's oath; can't be appended to my morning affirmations.

In my experience, these principles are easier to see among women scientists. Has to do with whether one's notion of competition is unduly testosterone-tinged or not, I suspect, like so many other things. I wonder if others notice it. To me, it's a screamer of a differential. As you've said a lot, disagreement strikes near the center of doing science, but rejection and anger and undue silences seem so axiomatic. In psych especially, divides happen where, ironically, synergies could add value to modified versions of both. I'm thinking of moral and personality psych at the moment.

Having been nice about women, it's quite apt to see Lee sign on and strap in first; always banging around in the philosophy of the affair, being the first-principles référent. Thanks for so much through the years, Lee.

[Anon Scientist]

I know you mentioned at the beginning a disclaimer that you're not speaking as editor of one of SPSP's journals, but that got me to thinking about this oath in related to SPSP's Code of Conduct:

http://meeting.spsp.org/general-info/code-of-conduct

My reading of it is that anything you say or write online that the other side may find "offensive" would be in violation:

"Harassment includes offensive verbal or written comments, and negative behavior, either in real or virtual space..." (then it goes on to say that includes those which are based on age, race,etc.. but it does not say it's limited to those).

We've seen a number of prominent people in the field come out against the transparency and replication movement, even labeling such people as "data terrorists".

So I'm guessing one side or the other of the issue is likely to find the opposite side's view "offensive". Would that be in violation of SPSP's code of conduct, if they expressed that view at the conference or online?

I'm sure you can get what I'm getting at -- it seems like the Code of Conduct is way too broad and can stifle legitimate academic inquiry.

[STeamTraen]

I have a modest proposal (although I appreciate the risks of "writing by committee", and/or having someone else tweak one's great ideas). At the end of the third paragraph, after "Similarly, I will recognize as valuable...", I would add something like this:

"To this end, I will respond in a timely manner to good-faith enquiries about my research, to the full extent that is necessary to establish the truth of the matter. If asked, I will defend before my peers any decision not to respond to any particular inquiry."

The first part is there because, unlike the criminal justice system (I would totally defend a researcher's right not to answer questions in court if accused of, say, grant fraud), I don't think there is a right to remain silent in science. If you publish an article, I would argue that you are making a moral commitment to providing essentially unlimited after-sales service on it to your peers.

The last bit is worded as it is because, while there are some time-wasters out there, it can be tempting to hide behind vague claims of inappropriate behaviour, stalking, cyber-bullying, etc. If I refuse to respond to Troll X then I should, as a minimum, be prepared to publish their unreasonable demand and show why I think it is unreasonable (and if the harassment is criminal in nature, I should show what remedial action I have taken). Simply mentioning second-hand anecdotes about "chilling attacks" does not seem to me to be appropriate behaviour for a scientist.

[Anonymous]

"i've been thinking a lot about what it means to be a scientist. being a scientist comes with certain obligations, and ignoring those obligations can give science a bad name. it seems to me we could do more to make scientists aware of this responsibility when they decide whether or not to join the profession."

I agree with (the sentiment of) this a lot! Thank you for writhing this. I view being a scientist as a responsibility. This is largely why i joined the "open science" movement about 7 years ago, and continued with it even when i did not want to be part of academia anymore. How could i turn my back on something that i knew about, and thought was wrong...

Perhaps i have come full circle now, because i think i am feeling, and doing, the same thing again concerning many "improvements" and "solutions" this "open science" movement has recently produced (for my issues with several of these "improvements" see here: http://eiko-fried.com/reflections-on-aps-18-open-science-transparency-and-inclusion/#comment-5395)

Just like i did not want to be part of academia anymore 7 years ago after finding out all the things that were wrong with it, i now don't want to be part of what (i fear) "open science" is becoming and/or what some folks seem to think it should be...

I found this all very hard to do: how could i "go against" all these "open science" folks who (i assume) want to make things better...

I reasoned Science is what should come first, and this also means scientists have the responsibility to speak up and/or criticize things that they view might be "bad" for Science. Even when that means criticizing the people who (you think) are the ones who will "make things better", and criticizing the ideas which are supposed to "improve" matters.

I would like to add to your blog post that just because it has been given the label “open science”, and just because certain “open science” folks think of them, doesn’t mean the “improvements” or the people who suggest them, are exempt of critical thought.