HONESTY AND INTEGRITY have been mentioned extensively in the media of late, although more in light of their absence than in celebration of their consistent application. In finance, politics, religion, journalism, athletics and many other sectors, honesty and integrity have too often been marked conspicuously absent, writes PAUL O'DONOGHUE
Yet some of these sectors have long been seen by many as sources of good example and moral guidance. The local politician interested in improving her community, the local bank manager who knows and supports his customers, the journalist who keeps us accurately informed, the athlete who shows the immense capabilities of the human body with endless hours of selfless training and the religious adviser, guided by revelation, outlining the true path to divine salvation.
How many wake-up calls does it take to make us realise that we’ve been deeply immersed in an illusory world for far too long? The values of honesty and integrity are still laudable and to be respected, but the urgent question is, how might they be reclaimed from the hucksters? There is currently a palpable sense of cynicism and a sad lack of constructive scepticism.
Where does science sit in the list of professions with dirty bibs? Are scientists, in their objective, ethereal, investigative world, somehow immune to the vulnerabilities and foibles that bring down their non-scientist fellow professionals? It seems not. Dan Agin, in his book, Junk Science: how politicians, corporations and other hucksters betray us, estimates that of approximately one million articles that were published in the top 5,600 scientific journals in 1998, about 400 involved fabrication. His estimate is based on a number of reasonable assumptions and is considered to be an underestimate.
He also reports that in a survey of scientists published in American Scientistin 1993, approximately 7.5 per cent of respondents said they were aware of results that had been plagiarised or fabricated within their faculty. I first became aware of this kind of problem in the sciences after reading as an undergraduate in 1974, Michael Mahoney's excellent and ground-breaking book, Scientist as Subject: the psychological imperative.
I have many heroes in science and I believe that, on the evidence, the vast majority honour the values of honesty and integrity. However, in order for this to continue, it is essential that checks and balances are in place and strictly enforced. Examples of such are debates at conferences, replication of experiments by a variety of labs and peer review of articles submitted for publication.
While such measures are very helpful in monitoring and challenging the work of scientists, they are not perfect. At best, they significantly increase the probability that honesty and integrity will prevail. If fabricated results are taken as accurate, the consequences can be extremely serious. They may send researchers off on expensive and career challenging wild goose chases, or more seriously, cause severe psychological and/or physical distress in vulnerable patients.
Honesty and integrity are not inherent traits. They are values that are learned and that must be nurtured and encouraged. From early on in life it is important to foster an attitude of doubt in children, to facilitate a critical and questioning perspective that values objective evidence. How well do we or our educational system do this? The value of a healthy scepticism towards knowledge claims via authority, revelation or intuition should be emblazoned on every child’s T-shirt.
Scepticism does not imply cynicism. It demands a questioning attitude and an honest search for true and meaningful answers to life’s questions. These are also the most important attributes in our scientists. The world is a complex place and it is crucial to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. The best tool we have for this is science. It is tentative in its findings and limited in its scope. But, all good scientists know and acknowledge this, while understanding that the enterprise moves inexorably forward into a constantly evolving and intriguing future.
Given developments in science and the pace of research, it would be advantageous to have structured and vibrant input on ethics, bioethics in particular, at second and third level. Ethical and moral decision-making is far too important to be left to self-proclaimed moral experts. In a democracy we must all learn to play our part.
It has been argued that science cannot give guidance on how to behave, though this is hotly debated (see, for example, the lecture by Sam Harris on ted.com). Science can advise constructively as to how to promote and develop positive behaviours when these are identified and agreed. Who will argue against honesty and integrity as a good starting point?
Paul O’Donoghue is a clinical psychologist and a founder member of the Irish Skeptics Society – irishskeptics.net.
Dr William Reville returns next week. He continues as a columnist with his regular column appearing twice a month in future