An Oath of Research Integrity?

There are many ways researchers can fall short of integrity standards when publishing, from extreme offenses like data fabrication to the more mundane slicing of salami.

Most interventions to prevent and detect such behavior usually focus on what can be done by hiring institutions, journal publishers, and research funders.

There is another category of agency we might make a stronger appeal to: the researcher’s sense of self-accountability.

******

At Thanksgiving, an in-law (and lawyer) mentioned something they would sometimes like to do in a situation, but added that he took a professional oath not to venture into such territory.

Of course, lawyers act outside their oaths all of the time. So if taking an oath is not a panacea cure for ethics in law, what reason would we have to believe it would be any different in research? We shouldn’t believe that. In all domains, there will be cases for which there can never be sufficient deterrence. For those, detection may be our only hope.

Outside of extremes, it seems to me that a formal public oath can serve as a healthy set of guardrails and signposts.

To overcome the incentives of self-serving antisocial behavior, make visible and remind ourselves of a deeper set of shared values. Giving one’s word in front of your professional peers must certainly weigh heavier on a conscience than clicking “OK” on a terms of service box. Even if the latter suggests more material consequences.

******

Systemic problem… tried individual solutions? Listen, yes. Our system of employment and compensation in research-related fields practically begs for misconduct to occur. On its face, an appeal to self-accountability sounds a lot like asking people—even those in dire circumstances—to simply make better choices.

Solving the problem of ‘publish or perish’ culture, for instance, would do more to bolster research integrity than an oath. But ‘publish or perish’ is a downstream effect of scholarly publishing and higher education systems that largely operate according to market logic; both being objects themselves of capital.

Not to be all Marcus Aurelius about it, but favorably reorganizing global market structures may require action from others, which we do not control. Meanwhile, we are in control of our own moral and ethical compasses.

******

In 2013, Ravid & Wolozin (2013) found no oaths analogous to the Hippocratic oath to have been “widely adopted for students graduating with doctorates of philosophy (PhDs) in the various sciences.”

Within medicine, there is no direct punishment for breaking the Hippocratic oath. Instead, there is the threat of medical malpractice, meaning the oath bit is largely cultural.

So, wouldn’t an equivalent of research malpractice be more efficacious than an oath for graduating doctorates in other fields?

Maybe there should be more rigorous paperwork that researchers sign with their employers, funders, and publishers. Enforceable compliance means consequences. But giving of one’s word also means something.

******

As it turns out, since January 2023, France requires all its Ph.D. recipients to take a research integrity oath after defense.

Translated to English, the oath reads:

“In the presence of my peers. With the completion of my doctorate in [research field], in my quest for knowledge, I have carried out demanding research, demonstrated intellectual rigour, ethical reflection, and respect for the principles of research integrity. As I pursue my professional career, whatever my chosen field, I pledge, to the greatest of my ability, to continue to maintain integrity in my relationship to knowledge, in my methods and in my results.” 

[Find the FAQ here.]

This new national practice appears to be one-of-a-kind. As reported by Science, this does not “mark entry in a specific professional body, as the Hippocratic oath does for medical doctors, nor will it be legally binding.”

Rather, as president of France Ph.D. Sylvie Pommier says, it is a “symbolic measure to affirm common values and what makes a good researcher.”

As observed, there has been international support for the measure, as well as some suggestion of threats to academic freedom. (How broad or serious those claims are is a point on which I am uninformed.)

Gardner (2022) writes the case for this oath is straightforward and with historical precedent, but says no matter how solemnly administered and recited, “the practices and norms that students witness in the course of their training” by doctoral advisers and peers will be the more crucial variable affecting the future conduct of fresh Ph.D. students.

Will France’s mandated symbol of individual accountability overcome an entrenched system interleaved with other motivations? Only time can tell.

Whatever the results, it’s a hypothesis worth investigating.

***************************

Like this content?

Consider supporting: https://buymeacoffee.com/arthur.boston

Or leaving feedback: https://forms.gle/eDiiYfeEMNciYdJr5