Special Issue Feedback

Ethics

Current Issue

This Article From Issue

September-October 2021

Volume 109, Number 5
Page 259

DOI: 10.1511/2021.109.5.259

To the Editors:

The special issue on Trustworthy Science (July–August) was the best of many outstanding editions of American Scientist. I was astounded at the honesty, intelligence, insight, and deep understanding of the complexity of the relationship between science, scientists, and society.

Every article brought clarity and focus to issues of deep importance. It’s as if subjects such as whistleblowers and trust in science are examined and presented for the first time, because no one before has treated them with such care and humanity. The beautiful quote from Chanda Prescod-Weinstein’s book The Disordered Cosmos (Nightstand) could describe much of what is contained in this issue: “What goes undiscussed is that it is not the only way to understand the origins of the world.”

Judith Stribling
Salisbury, MD


To the Editors:

I had just renewed my membership to Sigma Xi when I received the July–August special issue of American Scientist. I hope the future issues will be more scientific and less political or I will regretfully cancel my membership.

Maria Stacewicz-Sapuntzakis
Sterling, VA


To the Editors:

Your July–August issue was very disappointing; very little science and a lot of fluff about ethics!

Maybe your magazine just isn’t for me. I want to learn something new about science, not read rants about someone’s opinions about ethical issues.

Stephen Hepp
Montesano, WA


Editors’ note: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the hypotheses, conclusions, and best practices for dealing with the disease were revised (and revised again) in light of new data and circumstances. Some malicious groups jumped on these revisions to cast doubt on mask wearing, vaccines, and science in general. Many researchers responded that this iterative process is how science works: You reconsider your hypotheses and reevaluate your conclusions when new evidence becomes available. The evolving approach to the pandemic shows that science and peer review are working, not that science is unreliable or “wrong.”

Science itself must be held to the same standards of rigor and honesty. When it becomes clear that large parts of society have been excluded from involvement in science, or that some data have been gathered in a biased manner, or that some conclusions have been based on assumptions rather than on empirical findings, scientists should be eager to reconsider past work and present practices, no matter how established they might be. The processes of doing science and communicating about science are now their own fields of study with their own deep literature. They are as worthy of discussion as any other new discovery or result, especially because findings in these fields have important implications for every other discipline.

Ethical research practices should be of concern to anyone who wants to be certain that their medicine, infrastructure, food, and water are safe; that science is accessible to the widest range of minds; and that there are mechanisms for speaking up effectively if something goes awry. There is no partisan implication to the goals of health, safety, and opportunity.

American Scientist Comments and Discussion

To discuss our articles or comment on them, please share them and tag American Scientist on social media platforms. Here are links to our profiles on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

If we re-share your post, we will moderate comments/discussion following our comments policy.