| Title |
Ethical Ambiguity in Science
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-015-9682-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David R. Johnson, Elaine Howard Ecklund |
| Abstract |
Drawing on 171 in-depth interviews with physicists at universities in the United States and the UK, this study examines the narratives of 48 physicists to explain the concept of ethical ambiguity: the border where legitimate and illegitimate conduct is blurred. Researchers generally assume that scientists agree on what constitutes both egregious and more routine forms of misconduct in science. The results of this study show that scientists perceive many scenarios as ethically gray, rather than black and white. Three orientations to ethical ambiguity are considered-altruism, inconsequential outcomes, and preserving the status quo-that allow possibly questionable behavior to persist unchallenged. Each discursive strategy is rationalized as promoting the collective interest of science rather than addressing what is ethically correct or incorrect. The results of this study suggest that ethics training in science should focus not only on fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism and more routine forms of misconduct, but also on strategies for resolving ethically ambiguous scenarios where appropriate action may not be clear. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 6 | 30% |
| United States | 2 | 10% |
| Italy | 1 | 5% |
| Spain | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 10 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 16 | 80% |
| Scientists | 2 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 36 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 19% |
| Researcher | 4 | 11% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 24% |
| Unknown | 5 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 6 | 16% |
| Psychology | 5 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 11% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 22% |
| Unknown | 8 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 April 2017.
All research outputs
#1,276,359
of 24,037,774 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#88
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,402
of 266,612 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#5
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,037,774 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,612 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.