A university required all faculty members to
complete a short, online course on ethics prior to their pursuit of research
funding, and one faculty member in the architecture school refused to do so
because he saw the course as irrelevant to his work and a waste of his time. He,
nevertheless, pursued research funding and the administrators in his school had
to decide whether to let him do so or not.
We often associate
research with the scientific revolution of the 17th and 18th
centuries and the industrial revolution of the 19th and 20th
centuries. But research depends around an idea that dates back to the ancient
Greeks: that ethical actions stem from the virtue of those engaged in the
activity. While we may value research according to its consequences – did it
result in new knowledge or a useful discovery? – we also depend upon researchers’
integrity, honesty, and fairness in order to trust their conclusions.
The research community has
put in place mechanisms to ensure trustworthy conclusions. The anonymous or
“blind” review of a scientific paper by peers prior to its publication and the
replication of a scientific experiment by others to see if the same outcomes
occur represent two effective ways of catching unreliable or unverifiable
results. A third, relevant to the situation here, involves insisting that
researchers understand and adhere to the highest ethical standards.
Some in the architectural
community have discounted the relevance of this to their work. For some, architecture
entails the speculation upon future possibilities rather than the discovery of
facts about the world as it exists. The “truth” of a speculation rests upon its
ability to convince people of its value, not upon its verifiability. Meanwhile others
have questioned the objectivity of all human activity, science included. This
more-radical idea doesn’t distinguish between design and science, but instead
sees a degree of subjectivity and cultural relativity in both.
Such arguments, however,
do not diminish the role of virtue: in even the most subjective or speculative
work, integrity, honesty, and fairness matter. Nor do the virtues essential to
research end there. The cardinal virtues of prudence, temperance, fortitude,
and justice also apply: research demands the use of good judgment or prudence,
a temperate sense of balance and reasonable limits, the fortitude to keep
pursuing a promising idea despite setbacks or unexpected results, and a just
concern that the results have widespread benefits.
The so-called theological
virtues of faith, hope, charity, and love also have relevance to research.
Although we often think of science and faith as sharply divided, researchers
have to have a degree of faith in the value of their work and hope in its
ultimate success. At the same time, they have to love what they do, given the
long hours devoted to their pursuits, and to have a charitable respect for the
work of others. In research, as in all creative activity, we cannot entirely
disconnect good work from the goodness of the people doing it.
Which brings us to the
faculty member who refuses to complete the online exercise on ethics in order
to compete for research funding. At one level, this represents a contractual as
much as an ethical issue: when we accept employment we also agree to follow the
rules of our employers, however much we may dislike them. At another level, the
faculty member’s refusal to take the course raises serious questions about his
prudence and temperance, and suggests that his superiors would be wise to
prohibit him from pursuing funded research for which he seems temperamentally ill
suited.
No comments:
Post a Comment