Draft version 1.2 beta — Revised March 12, 2026

A Geoethics Primer for Geoscientists

Part 3. Science Ethics

3.1 Introduction

Science is a journey toward truth about the natural world that is based on reproducible observations. In Albert Einstein's words, "Truth is what stands the test of experience."¹

Science is a human effort to discover reliable information about the world. We gather reproducible observations and evaluate their uncertainties. Those data and their uncertainties are the scientific facts we work with. We suggest connections between these facts by proposing testable hypotheses.

Predictions based on those hypotheses are compared with observations of natural phenomena. If the implications of a hypothesis do not match our real-world experience, the hypothesis has failed to be useful, and we document that result. We then look for other ways to connect the data that might better reflect reality — hypotheses that can withstand the test of experience. Eventually, we can combine tested hypotheses, connecting them logically in models to investigate increasingly complex phenomena.

Honest and thorough communication of data, uncertainties, hypotheses, and both positive and negative results of hypothesis testing allows other scientists to attempt to replicate the experiment. Full communication of scientific inquiries is crucial for scientific progress. Einstein wrote, "... the right to search for truth ... implies also a duty: one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true."²

I consider three features of scientific inquiry fundamental. First, our hypotheses are always provisional, subject to revision or rejection as new data become available. Second, our results are never absolute — they always carry some uncertainty because the scientific facts on which they are based also have uncertainties. Over time, scientists have dedicated significant effort to reducing these uncertainties. And third, if a hypothesis is not testable — if there is no way for us to determine whether it might not be valid — it is not a scientific hypothesis. It is simply an assertion or speculation that falls outside the scope of the scientific process.

Beyond these few general reminders about the nature of science, this Primer does not include a full discussion of scientific methods, which constitute a flexible framework that we adapt to fit the problem we are studying. I have found the following texts particularly useful: an overview of the scientific method by Gauch,³ error (uncertainty) analysis by Taylor,⁴ and the design of experiments by Box, Hunter, and Hunter.⁵

Sigma Xi, the Scientific Research Society, publishes a pamphlet titled Honor in Science⁶ that many novice scientists are assigned to study while in school. It includes a few lines from the novel The Search⁷, written by the physical chemist C.P. Snow. The story is based in part on his experience publishing a paper in Nature that contained an unintended but critical mistake. That paper had to be retracted, which changed the trajectory of Snow's career in science. In my view, Snow's words clearly convey an essential point about science ethics:

"The only ethical principle which has made science possible is that the truth shall be told all the time. If we do not penalize false statements made in error, we open up the way, don't you see, for false statements by intention. And of course, a false statement of fact, made deliberately, is the most serious crime a scientist can commit."⁸

A false statement of fact, made deliberately, is a violation of the common moral rule "do not deceive"⁹ and results in wasting the time and resources needed to find and correct the flaw in the scientific record. If the deception results in harm to people who relied on the fabricated or falsified research results, it could meet the legal definition of fraud.¹⁰ An unintentional mistake might not be a moral issue, but it can still cause harm to future research, so it must be openly acknowledged and retracted, and a correction must be issued. Each scientist is responsible for the quality and reliability of their work.

The US National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) offers another brief text for students and science novices, titled On Being A Scientist — A Guide to Responsible Conduct of Research (2009).¹¹ This provides a short survey of the values, standards and practices of science, as well as accounts of some of the primary areas of concern.

3.2 Scientific Integrity

Some of the topics introduced in On Being A Scientist... are revisited in greater detail in the NASEM publication, Fostering Integrity in Research (2017).¹² National Academy of Science President, Dr. Marcia McNutt, stressed the importance of scientific integrity in her remarks when that report was released, saying that a scientist without integrity has nothing of value to offer us, and will have their scientific papers and other work products ignored.¹³ My opinion is that someone without scientific integrity is not really a scientist at all, because the scientific community is built on a foundation of trust.¹⁴

"Integrity" refers to a sense of wholeness and moral soundness: "the quality, state, or condition of being honest and upright."¹⁵

Stephen Carter is a professor at the Yale Law School who has thought deeply and written clearly about integrity.¹⁶ Here is his working definition of integrity:

Integrity, as I will use the term, requires three steps: (1) discerning what is right and what is wrong; (2) acting on what you have discerned, even at personal cost; and (3) saying openly that you are acting on your understanding of right from wrong. The first criterion captures the idea of integrity as requiring a degree of moral reflectiveness. The second brings in the ideal of an integral person as steadfast, which includes the sense of keeping commitments. The third reminds us that a person of integrity is unashamed of doing the right.¹⁷

Noting that "the US Federal Government lacked a consistent definition of scientific integrity," a working group of the National Science and Technology Council provided the following definition in 2023:¹⁸

"Scientific integrity is the adherence to professional practices, ethical behavior, and the principles of honesty and objectivity when conducting, managing, using the results of, and communicating about science and scientific activities. Inclusivity, transparency, and protection from inappropriate influence are hallmarks of scientific integrity."

Scientific integrity is the steady habit of acting virtuously in our work as scientists. The privilege of practicing science carries with it the duty to preserve that integrity. We meet this duty by making sound and honest choices whenever we engage in scientific work, mindful that we are all capable of dishonest or harmful behavior, both personally and professionally.

Other official statements about integrity and ethics published by the United States Federal Government on or before January 1, 2025, include the following:

• National Science Foundation Scientific Integrity Policy ¹⁹ (2019)
• National Science Foundation Conflicts of Interest and Standards of Ethical Conduct ²⁰ (2022)
• United States Office of Government Ethics, Compilation of Federal Ethics Laws ²¹ including "all provisions signed into law through the end of the 118th Congress", 190 p.

International statements and agreements about research integrity include the following:

• Singapore Statement on Research Integrity (2010) ²²
• Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research (2013) ²³
• Global Research Council Statement on Principles for Research Integrity (2013) ²⁴
• Global Research Council Statement on Principles and Practices for Research Ethics, Integrity, and Culture in the Context of Rapid-Results Research (2022) ²⁵
• European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2023) ²⁶

Even if you do not work internationally, these public statements define standards for scientific practice worldwide, and can help you understand these standards. Books by Carter,¹⁶ Pritchard,²⁷ and Macrina²⁸ provide additional useful background information about integrity, in general and in the context of science.

3.3 Scientific Objectivity

3.3.1 Introduction

A geoscientist can define the mineral quartz in a usefully specific way, so we can easily identify an unknown object as a quartz crystal (and not a hockey puck). Defining scientific objectivity, however, is more complex and remains a subject of significant debate among philosophers, sociologists, scientists, and others.²⁹

Recall that we scientists are working to discover reliable information about the world. Using the methodology of science, it is reasonable to say that the reliability of our results could decrease if we begin our scientific inquiry tainted by pre-conceived ideas of what the outcome should be. We can discover more reliable information through a process that minimizes the effects of bias. We can imagine a process free of bias as being perfectly objective, but most who have thought deeply about the matter seem to agree that perfect objectivity is unattainable.

While perfect objectivity might be impossible, that does not imply that it is useless to try to be objective. We try to recognize our potential biases and fulfill our obligation to disclose them to others involved in our scientific work. Known sources of bias should be avoided or mitigated.

In summary, it is impossible to be perfectly objective, but we can identify major sources of bias so they can be avoided or reduced. It is impossible to achieve absolute truth, but we can determine some things with a very small uncertainty. It is impossible to be perfectly virtuous, but it is relatively simple to avoid moral wrongs like killing someone, causing pain, disabling, or depriving someone of their freedom or pleasure.

3.3.2 Recognizing and Avoiding Bias

Bias distorts the scientific process by negatively impacting a scientist's objectivity. In the interest of providing the best information in the most efficient manner, each of the types of bias listed in the table below is linked to a short video created for the Ethics Defined ³⁰ web resource at the McCombs Business School, University of Texas—Austin. Links for the corresponding Spanish transcripts are available in the glossary in Part 7 of this Primer.

3.3.3 Conflict of Interest

Conflict of interest can result in bias. Black's Law Dictionary defines a conflict of interest as "a real or seeming incompatibility between two interests that one possesses or is obligated to serve, especially when one of those interests might benefit the person to whom both are entrusted."³¹ According to the "Ethics Unwrapped" resource, "A conflict of interest arises when what is in a person's best interest is not in the best interest of another person or organization to which that individual owes loyalty."³² Situations in which a personal interest and an obligation or duty to another (e.g., to science, the public, or an employer) are aligned — not divergent — can also be a conflict of interest if you seek to achieve greater benefit for yourself rather than focusing on your duty to the other interest. ³³

Conflicts of interest can be actual (real) conflicts that are apparent to anyone who knows all of the relevant facts, potential (latent) conflicts that have a good chance of becoming actual conflicts in the foreseeable future, and perceived (apparent) conflicts in which the public lacks relevant information but infers or imagines conflicts that might not actually exist. ³⁴

Bioethicist David Resnik defines an actual or real conflict of interest for a researcher as follows: "A researcher has a conflict of interest if and only if he or she has personal, financial, professional, or political interests that have a significant chance of compromising the judgment of the average scientist in the conduct of research." ³⁵ He defines an apparent conflict of interest in this way: "A researcher has an apparent conflict of interest if and only if he or she has personal, financial, professional, or political interests that appear to the average outside observer to have a significant chance of compromising the judgment of the average scientist in the conduct of research."

What are your primary interests? Here is a general (and likely very incomplete) list of legitimate interests.

• You have an interest in the health, safety, and well-being of your family and friends.
• You have an interest in living in accordance with common morality.
• As a scientist, you have an interest in being a good scientist and maintaining the integrity of the scientific enterprise.
• As a geoscientist, you have an interest in fulfilling your paramount obligations to act with integrity [1] to safeguard the health, safety, and well-being of the public, [2] to be a good scientist, and [3] to promote, protect, and sustain the viability and resilience of Earth's ecosystems.
• If you are a professional, you have an interest in maintaining or improving the reputation and well-being of the profession.
• If you are employed by someone else, you have a set of employee obligations and expectations (interests) that you have a duty to fulfill. Fulfilling those duties affects your ability to remain employed and meet your basic needs.
• If you are part of a company as an employee, owner, or investor, you have an interest in the company's success.
• If you are a public servant, you have a duty to act objectively and impartially in the public interest.

Having a conflict of interest is not uncommon and, by itself, is not an indicator of unethical behavior. Your actions when faced with a conflict of interest are what matters.³⁶ When you become aware that you have a conflict of interest, you must disclose the conflict to the other people who have a stake in the matter. Keeping the conflict a secret is not an ethical option.

Candid, good-faith discussions among the people involved in the situation will usually yield a consensus understanding of the issues involved. Sometimes, everybody involved will agree that the conflict does not significantly impact the matter or any related decisions. In other situations, it will be necessary for you to withdraw from participating in the matter in which you have a conflict. In financial matters, you might need to divest your conflicted monetary interests, or place them in a blind trust. If you believe that the conflict of interest might bias your decisions or your input to a decision-making process, you have a responsibility to recuse yourself — to remove yourself from the decision-making process or related discussions.

Some conflicts of interest might put you at risk of engaging in unethical and even illegal actions. Focusing on people employed in public service, Kernaghan and Langford³⁷ describe eight categories of misconduct associated with conflicts of interest that arise between duty to the public and personal interests. Those categories are: self-dealing; accepting benefits or bribes in exchange for governmental favors; influence peddling; using government property for private purposes; using confidential government information for private purposes; outside employment while being a public employee; employment after leaving the government that improperly uses contacts or information gained while in government service; and personal conduct. Some types of questionable personal conduct might expose a public servant to extortion, or cause reputational harm to the community of public servants in general.

It is important to be proactive and intentional about avoiding conflicts of interest as well as the perception of conflicted interests, and to develop strategies for resolving these dilemmas when they occur. In their book Forensic Engineering — Environmental Case Histories for Civil Engineers and Geologists (1992), engineer Gerry Shuirman and geologist Jim Slosson used case studies to explore conflicts of interest and other difficult situations that can occur in professional practice.³⁸

3.4 Scientific Misconduct

A distinguished group of scientists and other experts was convened in 1989 by the National Academies (NASEM) "to examine issues related to scientific responsibility and the conduct of research." (Philosopher Bernard Gert, whose work was introduced in Part 2 of this Primer, was a member of that group.) Their final report, titled Responsible Science — Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process,³⁹ included a framework that defined three categories of behaviors that harm the integrity of the research process: [1] misconduct in science (research misconduct), [2] questionable research practices, and [3] other misconduct. The report also provided a succinct definition of research misconduct.⁴⁰ With slight adjustment, the first of those three categories formed the basis of the Federal Policy on Research Misconduct, adopted in December 2020.⁴¹

Research Misconduct

Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.

• Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
• Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
• Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.

Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.

Because of its focus on fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism, this is sometimes called the FFP definition of research misconduct.

The NASEM report Fostering Integrity in Research (2017)⁴² provides a detailed account of the Federal Policy on Research Misconduct and the efforts to expand it to include issues beyond FFP. It notes that a significant majority of research institutions and nations that have published definitions of research misconduct include the FFP criteria, and some expand the definition to include other issues. The authors of the Fostering Integrity in Research report offered several examples of detrimental research practices that might be considered for inclusion in a future expansion of the federal research misconduct policy,⁴³ including the following:

Examples of Detrimental Research Practices

• Detrimental authorship practices that may not be considered misconduct, such as honorary authorship, demanding authorship in return for access to previously collected data or materials, or denying authorship to those who deserve to be designated as authors;
• Not retaining or making data, code, or other information/materials underlying research results available as specified in institutional or sponsor policies, or standard practices in the field;
• Neglectful or exploitative supervision in research;
• Misleading statistical analysis that falls short of falsification;
• Inadequate institutional policies, procedures, or capacity to foster research integrity and address research misconduct allegations, and deficient implementation of policies and procedures; and
• Abusive or irresponsible publication practices by journal editors and peer reviewers.

The UK Committee on Research Integrity developed a Concordat to Support Research Integrity⁴⁴ that includes a version of FFP while expanding its definition of research misconduct, adding three categories of misconduct:

• "Failure to meet: legal, ethical and professional obligations, for example...

[Note: three examples pertaining to research including human subjects were omitted, as largely irrelevant for our purposes in this Primer]

• Improper conduct in peer review of research proposals, results or manuscripts submitted for publication. This includes failure to disclose conflicts of interest; inadequate disclosure of clearly limited competence; misappropriation of the content of material; and breach of confidentiality or abuse of material provided in confidence for the purposes of peer review
• Misrepresentation of:
• data, including suppression of relevant results/data or knowingly, recklessly or by gross negligence presenting a flawed interpretation of data
• involvement, including inappropriate claims to authorship or attribution of work and denial of authorship/attribution to persons who have made an appropriate contribution
• interests, including failure to declare competing interests of researchers or funders of a study
• qualifications, experience and/or credentials
• publication history, through undisclosed duplication of publication, including undisclosed duplicate submission of manuscripts for publication
• Improper dealing with allegations of misconduct: failing to address possible infringements, such as attempts to cover up misconduct and reprisals against whistle-blowers, or failing to adhere appropriately to agreed procedures in the investigation of alleged research misconduct accepted as a condition of funding. Improper dealing with allegations of misconduct includes the inappropriate censoring of parties through the use of legal instruments, such as non-disclosure agreements

Honest errors and differences in, for example, research methodology or interpretations do not constitute research misconduct." ⁴⁵

Here are few additional ethical concerns that deserve particular attention, some of which are included in the UK Concordat:

• Retaliation against scientists who, in good faith, report mistakes or unethical behavior, including whistleblowers
• Retaliation, threats of retaliation, or suppression of results when scientists produce reproducible results that are contrary to the results hoped-for by, for example, a client, administrator, or biased/conflicted reviewer
• Malicious reporting of misconduct allegations — allegations made in bad faith with the intention to cause harm
• Interference in the work of another scientist or team of scientists, intended to disrupt, distort, or prevent their progress
• Sabotage — falsification by someone other than the project researcher or research team, intended to harm the research effort or the reputation of the researcher/team

Every scientist is responsible for their actions as a scientist. Society and the scientific community expect every scientist to act with integrity. We should aim for excellence, rather than just avoiding misconduct. Only our best efforts as ethical scientists will enable progress in our journey toward truth.

3.5 Reprise: Paramount Obligations

In our professional scientific work, geoscientists must act with integrity to...

1. Safeguard the health, safety, and welfare of the public
2. Adhere to the ethical principles, standards, and norms of science to seek and report faithfully on reliable information — truth — about our world
3. Promote, protect, and sustain the viability and resilience of Earth's ecosystems.

3.6 Scenarios

Scenarios are depersonalized outlines of situations that might involve a violation of moral rules or ethical standards, presented here to help you. {This section is under construction as of November 25, 2025.}

Scenario 3.1 Text

Some questions [1] text

 [2] text

 [3] text

3.7 Notes and References