1. Does the contradiction between Millikan's unqualified statement that he has published all the oil-drop data and the evidence of unpublished oil-drop measurements in his notebooks prove that he is guilty of unethical scientific behavior? If Millikan had not claimed to have published all the data, would he still be guilty of questionable behavior?
The contradiction between Millikan’s statement that he published all of the oil-drop data and the evidence that not all of Millikan’s data was used from his notebooks does not prove that he is guilty of unethical behavior. This experiment did not affect the health of humans or living things; only oil-drops were used. While Millikan’s behavior was indeed unprofessional, no one was actually harmed in the experiment. Also, Millikan may have had his reasons to not include the data other than just trying to make it look like he did the experiment “the right way.” Rather, if this experiment had concerned the health of other humans or living beings, Millikan’s behavior would have undeniably been considered unethical. If Millikan had not claimed that he published all the data, he would probably not be guilty of questionable behavior because he would have never actually lied about publishing all of his data.
2. Should the fact that Millikan was a highly successful scientist, and that he got the right answer in the controversy about the charge on the electron be a consideration in judging his scientific ethics?
As a scientist, Millikan claims the right to use his “scientific intuition.” He performed the experiment and published his notebooks that revealed all of his results and conclusions. There are certain circumstances when data collected in an experiment may be rejected or disregarded. Millikan used his better judgment to discriminate his data, which is an acceptable practice by scientists. Fortunately, Millikan’s conclusion was correct.
4. Is the intentional manipulation and selection of data in order to falsely prove a scientific premise less of a violation of acceptable ethical standards than the outright fabrication of data?
Millikan’s choice to select the data he would publish is less of a violation of acceptable ethical standards than the outright fabrication of data. It is better that he eliminated some of his trials than if he would have falsely stated results of experiments he never performed. He may have had reasons for eliminating results, such as technical difficulties or natural differences. However, there is no reason for forging information.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with number 4, Fabricating data is more of a violation of ethical standards than selecting data to falsely prove yourself right, but is selecting certain data and intentionally manipulating the data still ethical?
ReplyDeleteYeah, selecting and manipulating data definitely isn't ethical, but some cases can be more more unethical than others, if that makes any sense. For example, if a scientist tweaked his experiment just a little bit while creating a new medicine to cure a disease, this minor change can destroy lives. While Millikan's case did not destroy lives, and his results ended up being proven to be true, I agree that what he did was indeed dishonest.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with number 1. Millikan's decision to not use all of the information was the wrong thing to do. By saying that because no people or animals were endanger by this experiment or the information obtained by it, it is saying that it was okay. Once you start saying that this is okay, it becomes precedent and more people will take part in this type of activity, because it is "okay". I think that we shouldn't allow this type of behavior.
ReplyDeleteWell, fine! Touche...
ReplyDeleteMorgan, very good point!
ReplyDeleteI agree with number 2. It should be a scientist's better judgement used in publishing his work. If he or she would make a mistake in their notebook, and then go back and rework the mistake, they would only want to publish the correct information.
ReplyDeleteEven though Millikan's results later proved to be correct, it still wasnt a very good idea to leave some of his information out. However, I don't necessarily believe it was an unethical practice, because, as stated in the article, he may have had reasons such as technical problems that may have been the cause of different results.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Elise, although Milikan's way of discriminating data does not give a legitimate result, I do not believe it was unethical. Nothing but his own reputation was harmed by this.
ReplyDeleteBrittni, I also agree with your view on the case. Milikan could have made an error in his studies, and he believed that the results he did publish were reliable enough to leave out the contradicting results.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with number 4. It is better to be ethically right than to prove that your predictions are correct.
ReplyDelete