In the Classroom
The Educational and Moral Significance of the American Chemical Society’s The Chemist’s Code of Conduct Samuel V. Bruton Department of Philosophy and Religion, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS 39406-5015
Recently, several authors have advocated incorporating research ethics into the college science curriculum generally (1–3), and have made valuable suggestions about how this can be done effectively in both undergraduate (4–8) and graduate chemistry courses (9–11). As these authors note, the case study method is an important means of teaching scientific ethics. The educational and moral significance of professional codes of ethics, however, has received only passing mention in these discussions. My aim here is to explain how ethics codes and the ethics code of the American Chemical Society (ACS), The Chemist’s Code of Conduct, in particular, can usefully supplement the case study approach as a means of encouraging and educating chemistry students about responsible scientific conduct (12). A First Assignment My reflections on this subject stem in part from recently co-teaching a graduate-level class, Research Ethics and Skills, together with Mary Lux at the University of Southern Mississippi. Though the class was open to students from all disciplines, virtually all of those who took the class came from the sciences. Still, as we had hoped, our students represented a variety of backgrounds and interests. This led to some interesting and frequently lively cross-disciplinary contrasts and allowed students to hear about experiences and perspectives different from their own. We began the course with a general discussion of research misconduct, including a class period devoted to the New Federal Policy on Research Misconduct (13–14) and some of the controversies that surrounded previous federal misconduct guidelines (15). The students’ first assignment was then to find the code of ethics of a professional society in their discipline (or a closely related one) and to compare it in writing to the Federal Policy. To help them in their search, we created links from the class Web site to various available professional and academic codes (16) and to the extensive collection indexed by the Illinois Institute of Technology’s Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions (17) (Figure 1). On the day these assignments were due, we went around the room, asking students to comment on the codes and the answers they had written. Since many of them, as it turned out, were chemists or polymer scientists, the ACS Code became a common point of reference. Several purposes can be served by this relatively simple assignment and an accompanying classroom discussion of it. One thing it does, obviously, is familiarize students with a code of conduct from their own discipline. Further, it makes it clear that scientific and academic ethics codes, as opposed to the Federal Policy, are generally not intended for the purpose of enforcement or regulation. The Federal Policy sets forth clear guidance as to how allegations of misconduct are to be handled and investigated, delineating institutional responsi-
bilities and a standard of evidence that must be met for a finding of guilt. The ACS Code, by contrast, is altogether silent on these issues. Like the ACS, most professional scientific societies do not formally sanction their members for violating ethical guidelines (18, 19). Moreover, while the Federal Policy proscribes narrowly, limiting itself to strictures against fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism, codes typically address a much broader range of issues than misconduct in this strict sense. The ACS Code includes statements about conflicts of interest, sharing ideas and information, relations with colleagues, employers, and assistants, public comments on scientific matters, the health and welfare of others, the environment, and so forth. The Federal Policy has a comparatively narrow focus in part because scientists have been understandably resistant to the idea of expanded federal oversight. In addition, some ethical
Research Ethics and Skills Short Writing Assignment on Ethics Codes Find a professional code of ethics (preferably one from an organization in your own discipline) and compare it with the new Federal Research Misconduct Policy by answering the following questions (suggested length: 3 typed pages). 1. On the whole, which gives clearer, less ambiguous guidance, and which parts of each are vague and most in need of interpretation? Would you characterize your code as primarily a set of rules (like the federal policy), a set of ideals or aspirations, or something different still? 2. What issues, beyond misconduct in the narrow sense (fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism), does your code speak to, and why? 3. Are there issues that your code does not address but should, in your view? If so, why do you suppose your code does not address them? 4. How would you describe the primary purpose or function of your code? 5. Why should your code be taken seriously? Does it have authority only for those members of the professional society in question, or for all practitioners of the discipline?
Web Resources for Finding Codes of Ethics Online* •
http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~sbruton/RE&S/codes.html (This course’s Web site)
•
http://www.iit.edu/departments/csep/PublicWWW/codes/ codes.html (Index of codes of ethics online)
•
http://onlineethics.org/fedresmis.html (URL of a site about the new Federal Research Misconduct Policy)
(*Accessed Mar 2003) Figure 1. Writing assignment for the graduate course Research Ethics and Skills taught at the University of Southern Mississippi.
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 80 No. 5 May 2003 • Journal of Chemical Education
503
In the Classroom
norms, such as those involving sharing research data and ideas with other scientists, are such that it would be inappropriate for any kind of regulatory authority to attempt to formally enforce them. Other problems, such as conflicts of interest, are often better dealt with at the institutional level. It need not be supposed that misdeeds other than those prohibited by the Federal Policy are always less serious, although it seems true that fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism threaten the scientific enterprise in a particularly direct way. Nevertheless, codes vary in important respects, both in terms of the scope of the issues they address and the specificity of their provisions. Hearing about diverse codes enables students to better appreciate and critically reflect on the content of their own codes, and for this reason, even in working with an audience of chemistry students alone, it would be useful to compare the ACS Code with a couple of others. To cite one possible contrast, the American Physical Society’s Guidelines for Professional Conduct differs from the ACS Code in several ways, though as one would expect, there are also a number of similarities. The APS Guidelines pertain only to publication practices, research results, peer review, and conflicts of interest (20). The ACS Code, on the other hand, outlines a somewhat broader set of responsibilities, including obligations to advance chemical science and to remain current with developments in the field. Also, since it attempts to describe only “minimal standards of ethical behavior”, the provisions in the APS Guidelines are more rulelike. With respect to publications, for example, the APS prescribes making a distinction between authors, that is, those who have made a “significant contribution” to the work, and other contributors, who should be acknowledged but not listed as authors. The ACS Code, however, merely speaks of “maintaining integrity” in publications and giving “due credit” to the contributions of others.1 But perhaps the biggest difference is that while the Code emphasizes responsibilities to the public, the Guidelines do not, framing the responsibilities it speaks of instead in terms of what is owed to the “community of science”. To a large extent, this last difference is a result of the multifaceted nature of chemistry and the nature of chemists’ research. Chemistry differs from physics (and many other scientific disciplines) in that both historically and at present, a large proportion of chemists are employed by private industry. Though originally founded as a scientific society, the ACS represents both academic and industrial chemists, which at times has produced tensions within the Society, as Kovac notes (21). Still, the Code represents a broad commonality of values and concerns shared by academic and professional chemists alike, and both groups engage in research that often affects the public directly. The divergence of their interests, however, explains why the ACS supplements the Code with a set of Professional Employment Guidelines and the Society’s Academic Professional Guidelines. A similar point can be made by comparing the ACS Code with the American Institute of Chemists’ Code of Ethics (22). The latter places comparatively greater emphasis on employment practices and has nothing to say, for example, about the treatment of students. This is not surprising, though, since AIC membership consists primarily of industrial chemists. Its Code of Ethics addresses many of the same issues as the Society’s own Professional Employment Guidelines, though in a less comprehen504
sive way. All the same, AIC’s standards are not inconsistent with the ACS Code, and despite the distinction sometimes made between academics and “professionals”, there is an obvious sense in which both groups are part of the same profession (23). Professionalism and the ACS Code A further rationale for this assignment is that examining codes of ethics can be an effective way to broach the topic of the nature of scientific obligations generally. In response to our fourth question about the purpose or function of codes of ethics, students came up with several of the answers that are standard in the literature on ethics codes (24). Some saw the ACS Code as primarily aspirational or exhortatory, as setting forth ideals of behavior towards which chemists should strive. Others cited a public relations role of the Code, as a means of bolstering public confidence in chemists and conveying appropriate concern about scientific responsibility. These students noted the dependence of contemporary scientists on government funding and a perceived erosion of public trust in science. Still others thought of the Code in terms of the guidance it could provide chemists facing a difficult professional decision and its usefulness as an educational tool. Though there is some truth in each of these answers, even taking all of them together, something important is left out. Since the principles expressed in the Code are quite general and may give conflicting advice in particular cases, this restricts how helpful they can be in resolving difficult dilemmas. Though the Code may have some public relations value, this value is likely to be quite limited and would be easily undermined by the irresponsible acts of a few. Additionally, the Code does not merely set forth ideals, since many of its provisions describe legitimate obligations of chemists. What our students had little sense of, not surprisingly, was an appreciation of the role that codes of ethics play in constituting something as a profession. Professions can be distinguished from mere occupations in several ways. Professionals typically possess special certifications and skills and have received advanced degrees. They often earn large salaries and have high social status. Morally speaking, however, there is a more important point to be made. Genuine professions are cooperative undertakings in which practitioners are united by a common commitment to the pursuit of something loftier than their own self-interest (23, 25). Medical doctors are devoted to caring for the sick and protecting people from diseases and other ailments; lawyers are dedicated to the pursuit of equal justice under the law for everyone. Hence, medical doctors and lawyers, but also accountants, engineers, chemists, and physicists are professionals in a way that entrepreneurs, plumbers, and politicians are not. The nature of these commitments differs from profession to profession, of course, but in all cases, professions recognize standards of conduct beyond those imposed by law and ordinary morality. Codes of ethics are public expressions of these commitments and standards. Chemists, medical doctors, and other professionals have codes of ethics; entrepreneurs, plumbers, and politicians do not. By giving expression to the fundamental values of a profession, a code of ethics helps to define it as such.
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 80 No. 5 May 2003 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
In the Classroom
These reflections are helpful in understanding not only the purpose of the ACS Code, but also why it has moral authority, which was the final question asked in our original assignment. The principles found in the Code are not the result of mere conventions or arbitrary expectations. Chemists share the aim of pursuing scientific truth in a manner that contributes to (or is at least consistent with) the good of society. The Code articulates a consensus about the responsibilities that chemists must meet if they are to succeed in this collective endeavor. Despite its competitive nature, science depends on an atmosphere of cooperation and mutual trust. Conduct in the Code that is most likely to strike students as being merely ideal and aspirational—that, for example, chemists must have respect for the truth and a willingness to share ideas and information with others—is in fact essential for continuing progress in the field. By publicly acknowledging their responsibilities in a code of ethics, chemists invite both reliance and scrutiny from other members of the profession and from the public. In so doing, the Code’s provisions become obligatory standards of accountability for all of those who enter the profession and claim to be chemists, whether or not they are members of the ACS. These standards have moral force not because they are backed by threats, but because in an important sense they are self-imposed and voluntarily accepted. One cannot be a professional chemist in the fullest sense without being committed to them. The Code and the Case Method Examining ethics codes and reflecting on their moral significance helps to prepare students for the case method. For one thing, codes supply an important frame of reference and moral context that undergraduates and beginning graduate students may lack. A common way of teaching “applied ethics” relies on philosophical ethical theories to serve these roles. However, since such theories are abstract and controversial in themselves, they tend to be ill suited as a means of providing useful perspectives with which to think about the sorts of context-dependent problems that are at issue in research ethics. Simplifying the theories, as most textbooks do, makes them even more likely to yield unconvincing and implausible results in particular cases. Research ethics is better taught using principles based on sound scientific practice. Further, many college students approach discussions of ethics with the attitude that ethical norms are to a large degree merely personal or subjective. If not used carefully, the case method can at times exacerbate students’ moral skepticism. This may be particularly true if too much of the focus is on especially difficult and controversial decisions. Approaching cases with ethics codes in mind can allay some of this skepticism, by showing that a general consensus exists for many moral principles in science. Also, it is helpful to judiciously mix in cases of varying degrees of difficulty, both historical and hypothetical. Historical cases are often intrinsically interesting and give students insight into the sorts of situations and pressures that can lead even decent people to make questionable choices. Hypothetical cases can be presented concisely and crafted to focus attention on specific aspects of a topic (26). Students will find that codes shed light on cases, and that cases also shed further light on codes.
This point is well illustrated by the pressures that an increasing push for entrepreneurship has put on the contemporary research environment. Kovac and Coppola both describe ways in which the Bayh–Dole “technology transfer” Act of 1980 has had implications that undermine the culture of mutual gift-giving in academic science (27, 28). When science operates as a gift economy, the knowledge gained by one person becomes a public resource that others are permitted to use and build upon freely, with the understanding that they, too, then become benefactors of knowledge. However, this legislation made it possible for individual academic scientists, often together with their institutions, to hold protective rights to privatize the results from research funded by the federal government. Before, many discoveries derived from public research spending went undeveloped, because intellectual property rights to these discoveries were held in the public domain. As expected, the public has benefited from a variety of new products brought to market as a result of this change in policy. In addition, universities have profited from new sources of revenue, as have many researchers. But not all of the effects of this Act have been salutary. The attention of many researchers and their institutions has been turned towards financial opportunities that are now available to them and away from traditional academic responsibilities and missions. Consequently, both undergraduate and graduate education has suffered, new conflicts of interest and commitment have been created, and the scientific practice of open discourse has become increasingly endangered. Despite the clear utilitarian justification for these changes, they are in tension with the most basic values behind the ACS Code and the academic culture that made these benefits possible. After studying and reflecting on the Code, our students were better able to appreciate the threat posed by these developments and place these changes in a larger context. Though professional codes of ethics often clarify issues in specific cases, they obviously do not provide exceptionless rules that resolve all ethical problems. Like all sets of ethical principles, codes must be applied with discerning judgment and sensitivity to the particular details of the situation. Some of our students criticized the ACS Code for being overly vague in its prescriptions. When a code is not meant as a means of enforcing good conduct, however, there are good reasons for it not to be especially rule-like. Rules-like provisions sometimes give more determinate guidance, but they are also more likely to create the impression that anything not prohibited by the rules is permissible. Be that as it may, understanding the ‘why’ behind the obligations often gives practical guidance beyond what a code explicitly says. The Code states, for example, that chemists should “maintain integrity in all conduct and publications”. The spirit of this principle certainly condemns clogging the literature with fragmentary results and rushing into print conclusions based on meager experimental evidence, even though these issues are not addressed specifically in the Code. Also, circumstances may arise in which the Code offers conflicting recommendations. In such cases, there are often no easy moral answers, but bearing in mind the fundamental commitments underlying the Code is a good place to start.
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 80 No. 5 May 2003 • Journal of Chemical Education
505
In the Classroom
Acknowledgments I am grateful to the University of Southern Mississippi for the financial assistance to develop this course and to attend the 2001 Teaching Research Ethics (TRE) conference at The Poynter Center for the Study of Ethics and American Institutions (Indiana University–Bloomington), to Mary Lux for her expertise and enthusiasm, to Forrest Wood for his encouragement, and to three anonymous reviewers of a previous draft of this paper for their helpful suggestions. Note 1. It should be mentioned, however, that the ACS also has a set of Ethical Guidelines to Publication of Chemical Research, available at http://pubs.acs.org/instruct/ethic2000.pdf (accessed Jan 2003). This document describes the ethical obligations of editors, reviewers, and authors in detail, and also stipulates the “significant contribution” standard for authorship.
Literature Cited 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.
Coppola, B. P.; Smith, D. H. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 33–34. Kovac, J. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 926–928. Kovac, J. Sci. & Educ. 1999, 8, 309–319. Sweeting, L. M. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 369–372. Kovac, J. CUR Q. 1998, 13, 109–113. Moody, A. E.; Freeman, R. G. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 1224– 1225. Coppola, B. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 1506–1511. Treichel, P. M. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 1327–1329. Mabrouk, P. A. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 1628–1631. Rytting, J. H.; Schowen, R. L. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 1317– 1320. Bunnett, J. F. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 1058–1061. The Chemist’s Code of Conduct is available from the American Chemical Society, at http://www.acs.org/portal/Chemistry (accessed Jan 2003), and by telephone at (800) 227-5558.
506
13. The new federal policy was published in the December 6, 2000 edition of the Federal Register (pages 76260–76264), and at http://www.ostp.gov/html/001207_3.html (accessed Jan 2003). It is also available, along with comments, at this Web site: http:// onlineethics.org/fedresmis.html?text (accessed Jan 2003). 14. Bird, S. J.; Dustira, A. K. Science and Eng. Ethics 2000, 6, 123–130. 15. Pascal, C. B. Prof. Ethics 1999, 7, 9–31. 16. Codes of Ethics and Conduct. http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/ ~sbruton/RE&S/codes.html (accessed Jan 2003). 17. Codes of Ethics Online. http://www.iit.edu/departments/csep/ PublicWWW/codes/codes.html (accessed Jan 2003). 18. Bird, S. J. Science and Eng. Ethics 1998, 4, 315–320. 19. Gardner, W. Prof. Ethics 1996, 5, 125–138. 20. APS Ethics and Values Statements. http://www.aps.org/ statements/91.8.html (accessed Jan 2003). 21. Kovac, J. Found. of Chemistry 1999, 00, 1–13. 22. American Institute of Chemists Code of Ethics. http:// www.iit.edu/departments/csep/PublicWWW/codes/coe/ American_Institute_of_Chemists_0101.html (accessed Jan 2003). 23. Davis, M. Hyle 2002, 8, 21–34. 24. Frankel, M. Prof. Ethics 1996, 5, 119–123. 25. Resnik, D. B. The Ethics of Science: An Introduction; Philosophical Issues in Science; Routledge: New York, 1998; pp 34–38. 26. One of the best collections of cases available is: Kovac, J. The Ethical Chemist; The University of Tennessee: Knoxville, 1995. This publication is available directly from Kovac. Also recommended are Macrina, F. Scientific Integrity; ACM Press: Washington, D.C., 2000; and the Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Science, at http://onlineethics.org/ (accessed Jan 2003). 27. Kovac, J. Hyle 2001, 7, 141–153. Available at http:// www.hyle.org/ (accessed Jan 2003). 28. Coppola, B. P. Hyle 2001, 7, 155–167. Available at http:// www.hyle.org/ (accessed Jan 2003).
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 80 No. 5 May 2003 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
