Since I’ve made an appearance in a blog post of Judith’s about the road to scientific hell being paved with good intentions, I thought I might make a brief comment. It relates to a Twitter discussion I had with Judith about research integrity and whether to speak out or not

@curryja @gregladen @MichaelEMann I largely disagree. Your job is to have personal research integrity. Implying a lack in others, (1/2) — There's Physics (@theresphysics) July 20, 2014

@curryja @gregladen @MichaelEMann suggests that you think you are somehow purer than others. I'd call that sitting on a high-horse (2/2). — There's Physics (@theresphysics) July 20, 2014

Judith’s response in her blog post is

Because I talk about research integrity and try to defend it and point out problems when I see them, I am somehow dismissed as trying to present myself as purer than others.

Well, yes, precisely. What else does Judith expect? This isn’t some kind of debate about whether a particular scientific result is correct or not; this is a discussion in which Judith is implying nefarious behaviour in others. Accusing others of having questionable research integrity is an incredibly serious accusation. It’s not something someone should do lightly. It’s something for which – in my opinion – you should have almost watertight evidence. You don’t make such accusations just because you disagree with someone or because you dislike them. I don’t see why this isn’t patently obvious.

Judith also seems to think she should be applauded for highlighting possible improper behaviour. If by some chance Judith turns out to be correct, then this may well be what she would deserve. On the other hand, if Judith is wrong, then she would deserve no such thing. You don’t get applauded for making serious accusations that turn out to be wrong. If anything, making potentially career damaging accusations against others that turn out to be incorrect could – in itself – be career damaging.

I’ll make a few other comments. I do find those who pontificate about research integrity incredibly irritating. To me that we should behave with integrity is self-evidently true. I don’t explicitly say that I plan to behave with integrity, because I regard it as clearly my intention and would hope that this would be obvious. I have an immediate suspicion of those who choose to highlight research integrity. Additionally, those who do choose to highlight research integrity often do so in a way that implies that it’s obviously true of them, but not necessarily of others. Who made them the arbiters of scientific best practice? There’s a reason we often use the term research community. We don’t have those who police the behaviour of others.

To be clear, if someone is aware of genuine scientific malpractice, then speaking out is entirely the right thing to do and it should be applauded. However, advocating for some particular policy is not – in itself – evidence of research misconduct. An error in a paper, is not evidence for research misconduct. Someone being rude to you on Twitter is not evidence of research misconduct. Even refusing to acknowledge an error in a paper is not research misconduct. Of course, everyone should aim to be honest and act with integrity, but disagreements are unavoidable and just because you believe someone is wrong, doesn’t make them so.

Anyway, those are some of my thoughts on the whole research integrity issue. In my opinion, accusations of research misconduct should be made carefully and only when the evidence is compelling. Throwing such accusations around just because one works in a field where there are some strong disagreements is neither constructive nor – in my opinion – particularly good scientific practice. Of course, it’s a free world and if this is how someone chooses to behave, they’re largely free to do so. However, it’s not something for which they’re likely to be thanked, unless they happen to end up being correct.

I’ll end by giving my answer to the question Judith posits as the title to her post

Is the road to scientific hell paved with good moral intentions?

Yes, I rather think it is.