A major ethical dilemma in science is manipulating data. If the results don’t equal what is expected, it is easy to change or drop the data. Robert A. Millikan was an example of this.
J.J. Thompson discovered the electron in 1897 and also found the ratio of the electrons charge to its mass. However, it wasn’t enough information to find the actual charge and mass of the electron; therefore it was useless. Thirty-seven years later, Millikan used Thompson’s discoveries and found the charge of the electron. In the experiment, Millikan observed electrically charged oil droplets. The droplets would fall between two plates, which would then create an electric field. He measured how long it took for a drop to move a certain distance, which determined the charge of the droplet. When he published the results, the charges of the drops shown were multiples of the same number. This means that all drops must have had the same charge. After many years of researching, scientists found that Millikan didn’t publish all of his results in his papers. Felix Ehrenhaft claimed to have found “sub electrons”, and he said that his discovery was backed up by Millikan’s findings, but were never published. In the end it was determined that Millikan was right and Ehrenhaft was wrong.
Some scientists and scholars believe that Millikan was wrong in his doings because he should’ve published all of his collected data. Knowing all of the information that was found would have helped other scientists. Others believe he was not necessarily wrong because they believe in “scientific intuition”, and he had the ability to reason and only publish what he thought should be published. They believe that he didn’t publish all of the results because the equipment that he used wasn’t properly working. Either way, the decision he made can be argued to be ethical or non-ethical.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I do not agree with the scientists that are angry at Millikan. I think that it is his own choice to leave out parts of his experiments because he may have not thought all of the information was important for others to know. Although Millikan's decision can be argued, I think that his decision was ethical because it was his own right.
ReplyDeleteI think that manipulating scientific data is unethical because keeping information from other scientists can stop them from discovering new things with the research that has not been published.
ReplyDeleteI don't think he should have published information if he wasn't completely sure if it was correct or not. If someone tried to do another experiment based on information they got from his research and published something that was wrong.
ReplyDeleteI think that what Millikan did was unethical. He was only including the parts of his research that he wanted to be true which can give false ideas about this topic.
ReplyDeleteI think that this is unethical, because the information he decided to not publish could have helped other people make more discoveries.
ReplyDeleteIt can go either way because it was his experiment and he had the right to not publish things but by him not publishing the information he was stopping other people form making even further discoveries.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Allison that Millikan has the right not to publish his discoveries, but I differ from her in believing that publishing parts of the experiment is unethical. If Millikan didn't like the results of his experiment, he should have decided not to publish the entire thing, but publishing only parts of the experiment with out letting people know that the information they were receiving is incomplete is lying to the public, and therefore unethical.
ReplyDeleteAll of y'all have interesting points. I think that Millikan has the right to published what he wants, but remember he said that ALL results were published and he didn't leave anything out. If he were to leave out data and still be ethical, he should have stated that some data was missing.
ReplyDeleteNot including some of his data can skew the results of the experiment and make it look like it shows one thing when it really doesn't. Some examples could be a doctor who really doesn't know what he is doing and kills lots of people, but only reports the good results. You would never know that he is dangerous to go to. Another case would be with testing a new drug and the company that stands to make money from the drug includes data that makes the drug appear effective, but not those that do not. The study would then show that the drug is effective when, in reality, it does nothing. People who then take it not only don't get helped by the drug, but they miss the chance to take other drugs that might actually help them.
ReplyDeleteGroup 2: Find 3 articles about current cases of people who falsify studies. I know I read something recently about the FDA including studies that support specific drugs, but excluding those that do not. This supports their approving specific drugs, but not others.
I agree with soccer chick. It was Millikan's experiment and if he did not want to publish parts of his results then he should not have published the entire thing. That is hiding parts of the truth.
ReplyDeleteI think that if Millikan was going to publish his discovery, he should have stated that he left some information out or just refrained from publishing it.
ReplyDeleteI think that Millikan should have published his findings. How else did he think we were going to know about this? He could have at least passed on his notes to someone else giving them permission to publish them for him. Did Thompson get recognition as part of Millikan's study?
ReplyDeleteThis is kind of like what Abby was going off of, but I think Millikan should have just published some of his work and edited out the parts he didn't want to publish.
ReplyDeleteThompson didn't get recognition as a part of Millikan's study, but he already had it for discovering the electron so he really didn't need it in this case.
ReplyDelete