How can technoscientists better act to maximize the ethical and socioeconomic benefits from their actions? (Part 1)

Technoscientists occupy an interesting position. Similar to engineers, many technoscientists pursue a technical field, using scientific knowledge to further their aims. Unlike engineers, however, the pursuit of science is often seen as the pursuit for more knowledge in a specific field than an application of that knowledge. Learning more about the universe and furthering humanity’s understanding of how the world works is one of the core motivations of science. While many engineers may find their personal actions constrained by the structure of management and corporate policy, some scientists retain more autonomy in what they study and how they choose to fund that research. Because they are the experts in their area of choice, their opinion and position hold significant sway in the direction that progress in that subject will move in. As a general assumption, I think we can assume that most scientists pursue their work for the sake of intellectual curiosity and without any direct malicious intent. It is precisely this focus on the “purity” of the field, however, which may make science and technoscientists vulnerable to the alternate intents of external forces. While remaining passive and refusing to take sides in times of controversy may continue to produce good science, the global implications of such a removed mindset can be devastating. The process of analyzing the ethical and socioeconomic implications of scientific research and acting on such analysis is not trivial, but it is an activity that must be continually undertaken and improved on. As some of the primary producers of innovations that affect everyday society, it is essential that technoscientists act as the first line of regulation in research that could hold unforeseen consequences. I will argue that there are a number of strategies to help achieve this goal, including: recognizing the effects of outside influences on research, constantly re-evaluating the ethicality and morality of participation in research projects, and minimizing misunderstandings between scientists, the media, and the public.

Recognizing the effects of outside parties on research is not only difficult, but also somewhat of an awkward topic. Modern scientific practice hinges on objectivity and a process that seeks to eliminate personal bias from influencing the purity of the research results. In certain fields this process is known as the scientific method, a simple sequence of steps for conducting good science. While the content and complexity of this method changes between different institutions and individuals, most can agree it covers the following (Rochester.edu): 

-Observation and description of a phenomena

-Formulation of a hypothesis for the observed phenomena

-Use of hypothesis to predict other phenomena and/or the quantitative results of new observations

-Performance of a repeatable experiment, to test the hypothesis

This step by step process is intended to leave little room for the opinions of the experimenter to influence the published results.  This is by design, because in a perfect world a tested and failed hypothesis is just as valuable as a validated one. Despite this, outside influences can still hold subconscious effects in experiments. A 2010 article in The New Yorker investigated this very effect, terming it “selective reporting”.  The pressure to validate hypothesis can be enormous when financial (corporate) interests or the individual’s career is on the line. Even when the data doesn’t support the hypothesis, many researchers continue analyzing it until some significant trend can be found. Rather than conducting a new experiment designed to isolate this effect, these results are instead published directly. A similar effect was studied by statistician Theodore Sterling in the 1950s when he noticed that 97% of all published psychological studies with statistically significant data found the effect they were looking for (Jonah Leher, 2010). While on their own these results may not appear dangerous, when poorly supported conclusions are made by privately funded research the risk of dangerous products reaching the public increases. Rather than pretending that science occurs in a vacuum, it is important for technoscientists to remain vigilant to the selective reporting effect.

Works cited:

"Introduction to the Scientific Method." Introduction to the Scientific Method. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Apr. 2015. <http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html>.

LEHRER, JONAH. "The Truth Wears Off." The New Yorker. N.p., 13 Dec. 2010. Web. 20 Apr. 2015. <http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/13/the-truth-wears-off>.