Ways of Knowing and Doing in Science and Technology (Topic 2) PDF

Ways of knowing and doing in science and technology (Topic 2) Module 1: Overview and History and Philosophy of Science Prepared by: Ailyn F. Fadriquela, PhD Senior Lecturer of...

Ways of knowing and doing in science and technology (Topic 2) Module 1: Overview and History and Philosophy of Science Prepared by: Ailyn F. Fadriquela, PhD Senior Lecturer of Biology University of the Philippines  Objectives To discuss the ways of knowing science To know how to properly conduct science and research Science as a Way of Knowing Science refers to the system or process of acquiring knowledge about the natural world. To study the natural world, scientists use methods that are empirical, which means that they are grounded in observations and experimentation and are not based on opinions or feelings. Scientific inquiry refers to activities and practices involving scientists’ pursuit of knowledge. Science as a way of knowing refers to the belief that the actions of science are based on logic, evidence, and reasoning.  What Do Scientists Assume? Scientists have a certain worldview about science and their work. Their activities and practices are guided by the following assumptions: ⚬ The physical world is understandable. ⚬ Science cannot provide the answers to all questions. ⚬ Scientific knowledge is durable, but it does not represent absolute truth. ⚬ Scientific ideas are tentative (or subject to change) What Makes Science Different From Other Ways of Knowing? Unlike art, philosophy, religion and other ways of knowing, science is based on empirical research. A scientist conducts research to answer a question that she or he has about the natural world. Empirical research relies on systematic observation and experimentation, not on opinions and feelings. These systematic observations and experiments provide research results (evidence) that must meet two criteria in order for a scientist’s research to withstand thorough questioning. ⚬ These two criteria are validity and reliability. Validity means that research is relevant to the question being asked. refers to the accuracy and soundness of the inferences and conclusions drawn from the research findings. Reliability describes the repeatability or consistency of the research. Research results are considered reliable when other scientists can perform the same experiment under the same conditions and obtain the same or similar results.  Who Are Scientists and How Do They Decide What To Study? Scientists come from diverse backgrounds and regions, enabling them to approach problems from different perspectives. They employ empirical methods of inquiry despite their varying approaches. Due to the vastness of scientific knowledge, scientists typically specialise in specific areas, akin to doctors choosing different medical specialties. Scientists often dedicate their entire careers to studying a particular topic, limiting their qualifications to evaluate results in other fields. How Do Scientists Perform Scientific Inquiry? How Do Scientists Perform Scientific Inquiry? On Being a Scientist A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research Third Edition (2009) what do you think are the qualities of a scientist? On Being a Scientist... Trust is crucial in the scientific research enterprise. Trust can be sustained when scientists adhere to ethical standards and practices. Scientists trust the validity of results reported by others, while society trusts that research reflects an unbiased and accurate representation of the world. The scientific community must embody and promote the values of ethical scientific conduct to maintain trust. On Being a Scientist... Researchers have three sets of obligations that motivate their adherence to professional standards. Researchers have an obligation to honor the trust that their colleagues place in them. Researchers have an obligation to themselves. Because scientific results greatly influence society, researchers have an obligation to act in ways that serve the public. Advising and Mentoring Beginning researchers require both advisers and mentors for their professional development. ⚬ Advisers and mentors hold significant influence over the lives of beginning researchers and should avoid abusing their authority. ⚬ Beginning researchers also have responsibilities towards their advisers and mentors. Relationships between advisers and advisees can be intricate, and conflicts may arise. ⚬ Clear guidelines can help define the expectations of each party in these relationships. Treatment of Data Researchers have developed and improved methods and tools to ensure data accuracy and research integrity. Specific methods like statistical tests, double-blind trials, and survey question phrasing are used in certain fields, while others are universally applicable. Researchers are obligated to document their work in sufficient detail for others to verify and replicate it. Access to data and research materials supporting conclusions must be provided when publishing scientific papers or books. Update with new issues in data treatment and data sharing arise/done as scientific disciplines evolve and new technologies emerge. Mistakes and Negligence Scientific research is susceptible to error in a number of different ways. Scientific disciplines have developed methods and practices to minimise the possibility of mistakes. Failing to observe these methods violates the standards of science. Researchers have an obligation to the public, to their profession, and to themselves to be as accurate and careful as possible. Beyond honest errors are mistakes caused by negligence. Research Misconduct Certain research behaviors that intentionally deceive are strongly condemned by the scientific community and research oversight institutions. These behaviors, known as research misconduct, include fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. Research misconduct has the potential to undermine the self- regulation of science, erode public trust in its integrity, and negate the benefits of research. Responding to Suspected Violations of Professional Standards Questionable research practices are discouraged through various formal and informal means by researchers. If someone observes a colleague involved in research misconduct, they have a responsibility to take action. Research institutions that receive nation funds are required to have policies and procedures to address and report research misconduct. These institutions must designate an official who can handle and investigate cases of suspected misconduct. Human Participants and Animal Subjects in Research Scientists conducting research with human or animal subjects must prioritise the welfare of those subjects. Compliance with local regulations, as well as professional codes, is essential. The "three R's" of animal testing alternatives (replacement, reduction, and refinement of animals used in research, teaching, testing, and exhibition) ⚬ Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees. Institutional Review Board- set the standards for research involving human participant Human Participants and Animal Subjects in Research Environmental Research Let’s have some exercise: DISCOVERING AN ERROR! Two young faculty members -- Marie, an epidemiologist in the medical school, and Yuan, a statistician in the mathematics department -- have published two well-received papers about the spread of infections in populations. As Yuan is working on the simulation he has created to model infections, he realises that a coding error has led to incorrect results that were published in the two papers. He sees, with great relief, that correcting the error does not change the average time it takes for an infection to spread. But the correct model exhibits greater uncertainty in its results, making predictions about the spread of an infection less definite. When he discusses the problem with Marie, she argues against sending corrections to the journals where the two earlier articles were published. “Both papers will be seen as suspect if we do that, and the changes don’t affect the main conclusions in the papers anyway,” she says. Their next paper will contain results based on the corrected model, and Yuan can post the corrected model on his web page. What obligations do the authors owe their professional colleagues to correct the published record? How should their decisions be affected by how the model is being used by others? What other options other than publishing a formal correction? Laboratory Safety in Research Laboratory safety is a crucial aspect of research and is regulated by the government and professional guidelines. Researchers should regularly review safety information and procedures, ideally on an annual basis. A provided checklist outlines important subjects that should be covered during safety reviews. Laboratory Safety in Research Sharing of Research Results Peer-reviewed journal publication is the primary and crucial method for sharing comprehensive research results, despite varying practices and emerging digital technologies in different fields. Published results can be utilised by other researchers to advance knowledge. Until research results become widely known, individuals using them are obligated to acknowledge the discoverer through citations. Authorship and the Allocation of Credit The list of authors on a published paper signifies their contributions to the work. Properly assigning credit for team work can be challenging, but authorship recognition is significant for a scientist's career. Authorship conventions can vary significantly between disciplines and research groups. Several journals and professional societies have established guidelines outlining authorship conventions specific to different fields. Authorship and the Allocation of Credit Intellectual Property Researchers should recognise the potential value of their discoveries and the interests of their laboratories and institutions in profiting from them. Familiarity with intellectual property rules is essential, along with protecting one's own interests. Research institutions typically have policies regarding intellectual property, including data collection, publication guidelines, transfer of rights, disclosure of patentable inventions, and allocation of royalties. Researchers collaborating internationally or working on projects with colleagues in other countries should consider the variations in patent law across jurisdictions. New laws, regulations, and policies are continuously shaping intellectual property rights and have significant implications for researchers. Competing Interests, Commitments, and Values Conflict of interest arises when researchers have personal interests that may hinder their professional judgment. Properly managing these conflicts, especially those involving financial gain and personal relationships, is crucial for upholding researcher integrity and maintaining the integrity of science. Regulations, codes of conduct, and policies exist to identify and manage conflicts of interest, with requirements for researchers to disclose financial interests and personal relationships. Researchers should be aware of these policies and guidelines, including those addressing conflicts of commitment. While individual values are inherent in science, strongly held values or beliefs can potentially bias researchers' work and undermine scientific integrity. Competing Interests, Commitments, and Values The Researcher in Society Researchers are accountable for contemplating the broader societal implications of their work and the knowledge they generate. In public discussions, they may offer expert advice and educate others on scientific or policy matters related to their research. Researchers possess the freedom to express their beliefs and actively engage in social change while fulfilling their professional duty to conduct objective and accurate research. However, when researchers become advocates for a specific issue, others may perceive them as biased due to their advocacy role. WHO SHOULD GET CREDIT FOR THE DISCOVERY OF PULSARS? WHO SHOULD GET CREDIT FOR THE DISCOVERY OF PULSARS? A much-discussed example of the difficulties associated with allocating credit between beginning and established researchers was the 1967 discovery of pulsars by Jocelyn Bell, then a 24-year-old graduate student. Over the previous two years, Bell and several other students, under the supervision of Bell's thesis adviser, Anthony Hewish, had built a 4.5-acre radio telescope to investigate scintillating radio sources in the sky. After the telescope began functioning, Bell was in charge of operating it and analyzing its data under Hewish's direction. One day Bell noticed "a bit of scruff" on the data chart. She remembered seeing the same signal earlier and, by measuring the period of its recurrence, determined that it had to be coming from an extraterrestrial source. Together Bell and Hewish analyzed the signal and found several similar examples elsewhere in the sky. After discarding the idea that the signals were coming from an extraterrestrial intelligence, Hewish, Bell, and three other people involved in the project published a paper announcing the discovery, which was given the name "pulsar" by a British science reporter. Many argued that Bell should have shared the Nobel Prize awarded to Hewish for the discovery, saying that her recognition of the signal was the crucial act of discovery. Others, including Bell herself, said that she received adequate recognition in other ways and should not have been so lavishly rewarded for doing what a graduate student is expected to do in a project conceived and set up by others.  Questions??? See you next class!