Implementing the Netherlands Code of Conduct for S

Authors: Daan Schuurbiers Patricia Osseweijer Julian Kinderlerer

Publish Date: 2009/01/21

Volume: 15, Issue: 2, Pages: 213-231

PDF Link

Abstract

Widespread enthusiasm for establishing scientific codes of conduct notwithstanding the utility of such codes in influencing scientific practice is not selfevident It largely depends on the implementation phase following their establishment—a phase which often receives little attention The aim of this paper is to provide recommendations for guiding effective implementation through an assessment of one particular code of conduct in one particular institute Based on a series of interviews held with researchers at the Department of Biotechnology of Delft University of Technology this paper evaluates how the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Scientific Practice is received by those it is supposed to govern While respondents agreed that discussion of the guiding principles of scientific conduct is called for they did not consider the code as such to be a useful instrument As a tool for the individual scientific practitioner the code leaves a number of important questions unanswered in relation to visibility enforcement integration with daily practice and the distribution of responsibility Recommendations are provided on the basis of these questions There is more at stake than merely holding scientific practitioners to a proper exercise of their duties implementation of scientific society codes of conduct also concerns the further motives and value commitments that gave rise to their establishment in the first placeScientific and engineering codes of conduct have received a considerable amount of attention over the last decades several hundreds of codes pledges and oaths can be found on the web The UNESCO Global Ethics Observatory 1 has registered 151 codes of conduct related to science and technology worldwide and this is probably just a fraction of the total number of codes produced in recent yearsWhereas scientific associations often have high expectations of such codes in regard to raising awareness of the principles that the profession endorses 2 the mere establishment of codes of conduct may not always lead to the expected outcomes 3 Codes of conduct do not necessarily support their stated intentions and may when they appear superficial or strategic even work against them 4 Whether codes of conduct achieve their aims is dependent on the aims and intentions with which they are produced the way they are received and taken up by the members of the professional community continuing efforts to discuss and reflect on them and the involvement of relevant stakeholders outside the professional community The implementation phase is thus at least as important as their establishment This phase however often receives little attention How is the code taken up by the scientific community that it addresses What are scientists to make of a code of scientific practice once it has landed on their desks And how can it be integrated with ongoing practices The aim of this paper is to address these kinds of questions for one particular code of conduct in one particular placeThe Netherlands Code of Conduct for Scientific Practice 5 will be used as a case study This code of conduct which was established in 2005 distinguishes itself from other codes in the Netherlands by addressing scientific practice in general Furthermore it is to be implemented in universities throughout the Netherlands and was therefore considered an appropriate object of study The Department of Biotechnology of Delft University of Technology TU Delft was chosen as the locus for evaluation The research in this department focuses on living microorganisms the cell and its components It employs 22 permanent scientific staff 12 laboratory technicians and 85 temporary researchers PhD’s post docs etc Research areas include analytical biotechnology bioseparation technology biocatalysis and organic chemistry enzymology bioprocess technology industrial microbiology and environmental biotechnology The department was considering implementation of the code of conduct at the start of this study Whilst good scientific conduct in the case of research on either animals or humans is ethically sensitive for obvious reasons research on microorganisms is much less publicly controversial Researchers’ willingness to discuss the norms of scientific conduct can therefore be expected not to arise from a perceived need to appease public concerns which means the results may apply in other fields of research as well Based on a series of interviews held with researchers at the department this paper will evaluate how the code is received by those that it is supposed to govern The empirical results are followed by reflection on a number of underlying concerns by which recommendations for guiding effective implementation of this code and scientific codes of conduct in general will be identifiedCodes of conduct establish guidelines that indicate what organisations or institutions perceive as ‘good’ conduct of their members or employees or which norms and values should guide that conduct 6 Types functions and remit of codes vary widely Frankel 7 describes several functions that codes may have as an enabling document a source of public evaluation a deterrent to unethical behaviour or a support system with the aim to socialize the profession to enhance public trust or to adjudicate Codes usually fulfil several of these functions simultaneously Derivatives of these functions can be found within codes of conduct for science and engineering to prevent scientific misconduct fraud or plagiarism to hold scientific practitioners to a proper exercise of their duties to restore or maintain public trust in science and engineering or to encourage scientists and engineers to engage with their responsibilities towards societyThe importance attached to scientific codes of conduct can be related to several instances of scientific misconduct in recent years the most notorious cases probably being those of the South Korean biotechnologist Hwang WooSuk and German physicist Jan Hendrik Schön both of whom were accused of fabricating data and fraudulent reporting These and other cases which have received wide media attention have been said to erode public trust in science If scientists themselves disregard the principles of scientific research then what does that imply for the credibility of their results Holding scientists to the proper exercise of their duties thus becomes an issueThere are several ways to distinguish types of codes 3 7 8 Rappert’s classification scheme will be used here He distinguishes between codes of ethics “aspirational codes that aim to set standards and alert individuals to certain issues” codes of conduct “educational or advisory codes that aim to provide guidelines for action” and codes of practice “enforceable codes that prescribe or proscribe certain behaviour” The Netherlands Code of Conduct studied here is a scientific society code of conduct in Rappert’s scheme an advisory code with the aim to hold scientific practitioners to a proper exercise of their duties and ultimately to maintain public trust in science Before going into the results of the interviews we will briefly describe the code we have taken as our case how it came into existence what it purportedly aims to achieve and what stage its implementation has reachedThis code of conduct was established in response to a lecture by Paul van der Heijden former Rector Magnificus of the University of Amsterdam 9 He suggested that universities should try to convince society at large of the worth of their efforts by making the principles of scientific conduct explicit in a commonly accepted generic code of conduct for universities The Dutch Association of Universities VSNU subsequently established the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Scientific Practice which came into force as from 1 January 2005

Keywords: