The focus in research ethics for scientists has been on sanctions to prevent infractions of falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism (FFP). However, De Vries et al.(2006) claim that the most troubling ethical conflict researchers face all the time is not in such extreme situations, but the more mundane, everyday problems in the work environment such as the "gray area" of ambiguity in figuring out the meaning of raw data. Following several authors who apply virtue theory to scientists' ordinary research practices (Macfarlane 2009, Hicks and Stapleford 2016), I will highlight the mundane problems that scientists encounter in their laboratory space by focusing on the virtue of trustfulness and testimonial justice, especially when the experimenters deal with anomalous reports. I suggest that researchers in today's highly cooperative laboratories are under a holistic web of trust that consists of elements taking stakes in the question of "Whom and what to trust?" that comes out when an experiment failed. These elements not only include the well-known interrelatedness of (a) observation data and (b) background theories/models, but also (c) the competence of the experimenter, or (d) the reliability of the instruments and materials used, etc. Particularly, when the social status of a speaker-researcher (e.g., a backbone researcher or a newcomer in the field) in reporting anomalous data acts as a heuristic for the hearer-researcher to over/underestimate one's credibility as a speaker (element (c) above), leading to less doubt the other elements, I explore the possibility that this situation falls under the concept of Miranda Fricker(2007)'s "testimonial injustice," which captures Merton(1973)'s idealized norm of universalism. I conclude that research ethics for experimenters should envision a virtuous hearer-researcher who tries one's best to give the appropriate amount of trust to other members in the lab, in addition to the virtuous speaker-researcher who strives for being trustworthy. I hope that this poster will open up further discussions such as: How to understand the characteristics of trust in modern laboratories? How to teach research ethics, including dealing with one's failure in conducting experiments? How to facilitate a more just lab environment that is buttressed by mutual trust of the members? etc.

References

De Vries, Raymond, Anderson, Melissa S. and Martinson, Brian C. (2006). "Normal Misbehavior: Scientists Talk About the Ethics of Research," Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1(1), 43-50.

Fricker, Miranda (2007). Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford University Press.

Hicks, Daniel J. and Stapleford, Thomas A. (2016). "The Virtues of Scientific Practice: MacIntyre, Virtue Ethics, and the Historiography of Science," Isis, 107(3), 449-472.

Macfarlane, Bruce (2009). Researching with Integrity: The Ethics of Academic Enquiry, Routledge.

Merton, Robert K. (1973). "The Normative Structure of Science", in The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, University of Chicago Press.