Theme Document

Dr Daniel Glaser, UCL, February 2004

Theme day 1: ‘Ethics in everyday scientific practice’

Ethical issues are not only for philosophers and politicians. Although some ethical content is included in most biomedical degrees, it is often treated as a bolt-on (like first aid or history of science). But ‘how science really works’ depends on a special set of social norms embodied in the daily practice of science. Our subthemes will examine various aspects of these questions from philosophical perspectives and emphasise how individual researchers can practically address and inform themselves about these issues.

• Peer review – the least worst option: Although most scientists regard reviewing grants and papers as a chore it is held as the central guarantee of modern scientific authority. Is anonymous reviewing effective, or can you usually guess who the reviewer was anyway? How much of reviewing is driven by coterie politics and how can editors effectively arbitrate? Is peer review a necessary restriction before work can be sent out to the wider public? The internet offers a range of models from unrefereed preprint servers to self regulating forums such as slashdot.org; is it time to test some new standards?
  
• Statistical honesty: Best practice in statistical analysis and presentation of data evolves over time and is as much a rhetorical as a mathematical issue. If sufficient evidence is found to reject the null hypotheses a result is then taken as true, but is this simplistic form of argument helpful or justified given the availability of more realistic (Bayesian) techniques? Especially given the power of modern computers and statistical packages, running many analyses and publishing only those which work is more and more common, and almost always ignored in the writing of papers. How can statistical honesty be improved and is this in the end a mathematical or a social problem?
  
• Funding – directing and owning science: Do current funding structures encourage better science or discourage interesting risks? If public money pays for research, should the public have a say in what science gets done, and how can publicly funded science remain in public ownership? The Human Genome Project was a victory for open access but is this being slowly eroded by companies taking out patents for applications? And can we expect private funding for basic science without compromising our ideals? How widespread is the suppression or promotion of results on commercial grounds and can an individual scientist honestly profit from commercial exploitation of her work?

Theme day 2: ‘Ethical practice in public engagement’

Public engagement is the latest model for the relations between scientists and non-scientists. New approaches replace ideas of ‘dissemination’ of scientific truths from on high to a passive public. How can scientific practice be made more transparent and how should the public be empowered to participate actively in scientific discourse?

• Who does the engaging: should public engagement of some sort be required of all publicly funded scientists, or is it only for the publicity seekers? Opinion polls show that ‘university scientist’, ‘government scientist’ and ‘industry scientist’ are trusted to very different extents, but is there a fundamental difference? Is reliance on the media for engagement necessary or can grass-roots structures provide a less sensational and more meaningful dialogue? Do scientists have an elevated moral status through their knowledge or can the scientist’s voice be properly integrated into a moral discourse involving non-experts?
  
• Scientific risk and real world decisions: how can uncertainty be effectively communicated? Is a statistically sophisticated education necessary for informed debate or is it simply tabloid scaremongering which clouds important questions? Do scientists rely too much on obscurity to retain their authority? Can an honest portrayal of a partially understood field empower the public or does it simply undermine people’s faith in science?

Science Café as a model of engagement
This is a format that was developed by Duncan Dallas in the UK and is based on the French Café Philosophique tradition. It is a non-hierarchical and democratic formula for involving all participants in a scientific discussion. It is held in a café or other informally seated setting, ideally outside an academic institution, often with an experience facilitator. A speaker talks for 20 minutes or so and gives an outline of her field and a couple of relevant questions, generally without slides or visual aids. There is then a 10 minute break for informal discussion and refilling of drinks. A discussion is started; typically just under an hour, involving but not led by the speaker. It is not a question and answer session, and the expert’s voice does not dominate. Paradoxically, it is often the silent presence of a professional which legitimates and promotes an empowered discussion.
www.cafescientifique.org