ESSAY EDITING

please edit for grammar and sentence structure!! thanks in advance!!

Resnik briefly discusses several standards of ethical conduct in science. I will explain the standard of openness from Resnik’s point of view, and argue why it is important to follow this standard in most circumstances in science. I will provide important exceptions to the ethical standard of openness. Also, I will discuss the case of Charles Darwin and by applying the rule of openness, argue why this case was a legitimate exception, and how it is ethically right according to the moral principle of privacy.

Standards of ethical conduct incorporate basic moral principles and provide a foundation in which scientists can base common morals (Resnik 1998, 53). The ethical standard I will discuss based on Resnik’s views is the rule of openness. Resnik states “Scientists should share data, results, methods, ideas, techniques, and tools. They should allow other scientists to review their work and be open to criticism and new ideas” (Resnik 1998, 58). The ethical standard of openness states that scientists should share and cooperate with other scientists (Resnik 1998,58). It states that scientists should be open and honest about sources of funding for their projects, and also, scientists should allow other members of science community to review their work (Resnik 1998, 58).

The standard principle of openness is important and should be followed in most circumstances in science. This is because the rule of openness prevents science from becoming biased and narrow (Resnik 1998, 58). When scientists share and observe their work with others, they are able to receive feedback and input from other scientists who might have different viewpoints and ideas (Resnik 1998, 58). Therefore, the outcome would be a collaborate work of a variety of scientists, rather than a strict and a narrow viewpoint of just one scientist (Resnik 1998, 58).

Also, the rule of openness is important because it promotes trust among the science community as well as the public (Resnik 1998, 58). By sharing data, techniques and methods, scientists are trusting one another with their results and achieves the universal ethical goal of helping others (Resnik 1998, 58). When scientists are open about their work and research, the public starts to suspect that the scientist might be dishonest or untrustworthy about their work (Resnik 1998, 58). Therefore, it is crucial for the scientists to be open as the public would start to distrust science and the scientists would lose funding and support (Resnik 1998, 58). Another reason why the ethical standard of openness is so important is that it advances science (Resnik 1998, 58). Scientists do not have to start their research from the very bottom- they may base their research on previous data and results, which would save time and resources (Resnik 1998, 58).

Resnik discusses some exceptions to the ethical standard of openness. One of those exceptions is that scientists may choose not to be open if or when their research is incomplete, and they might not want to share to make sure they have the correct data, or to make sure they receive proper credit (Resnik 1998, 59). The concern is that other scientists may use the incomplete work and achieve better results, or achieve the desired results quicker than of the original scientist (Resnik 1998, 59). However, there is no acceptable exception once the research is complete. The data and results should be available to other scientists and the public (Resnik 1998, 59).
Another important exception to the rule of openness is that a scientist may choose not to be open about their work when they or their work are threatened in any way because of their particular controversial field or topic of research (Resnik 1998, 59). Some controversial matters would be taken highly to criticism and if it is unpopular with the public, it may go as far as to stopping the research all together, and possibly put the scientist in danger (Resnik 1998, 59).

The case of Charles Darwin is a documented example of where the ethical standard of openness was violated (Resnik 1998, 59). Charles Darwin is one of the first evolutionary biologists, who conducted his research and refined his theory of evolution and natural selection for over two decades (Landry 2003). Darwin made observations that amounted to those theories while he was abroad on a ship called HMS Beagle while travelling near Galapagos Islands (Resnik 1998, 91). However, over this period of time, Darwin did not publish his findings nor share them with anybody, except one person named Joseph Hooker (Resnik 1998, 91). His ideas were kept to himself, and it was only when another biologist/geologist came out with his own idea of natural selection, Darwin decided to announce his theories to the science community (Resnik 1998, 91). Darwin violated the standard of openness because he failed to share his work and data with other scientists, he did not openly discuss his ideas with the public, and he worked mostly alone without input from other people (Resnik 1998, 91).
However, Charles Darwin’s violation of the ethical standard of openness was a legitimate exception based on the grounds that he wanted to make sure his data and theory was accurate and well-developed, and also, he feared for persecution from the public and the church (Landry 2003). He wanted to make sure he could present a flawless, and solid case on evolution (Landry 2003). Darwin was aware that his ideas would be heavily criticized and analyzed, and he wanted to make sure it was a convincing case (Resnik 1998, 91). Because he was in a time period where religion strictly governed people’s lives, Darwin had to be extremely careful of his controversial ideas as they conflicted with the fundamental basis of creationism (Landry 2003). The fact that he feared for his ongoing controversial research and perhaps his life, concludes that it is an acceptable violation of the ethical standard of openness.

Charles Darwin’s case cannot be regarded as ethically wrong based on the moral principle of privacy. The principle of privacy states to respect personal privacy and confidentially (Resnik 1998, 22). Darwin following the ethical standard of openness would have resulted in him in violation of this basic moral principle. Darwin wanted to keep his ideas and research to himself and the moral principle of privacy supports his actions. Therefore, the case of Charles Darwin is ethically right, based on the moral principle of privacy.

Resnik discusses several important ethical rules to follow in science. I have discussed the ethical rule of openness and how it is important to follow this rule in most circumstances. I have discussed important exceptions to the rule of openness. As well, I have discussed the case of Charles Darwin and argued why his case was a legitimate exception to the rule of openness. I have also argued why the case of Darwin was ethically right according to the moral principle of privacy.

  1. 👍 0
  2. 👎 0
  3. 👁 233
  1. Resnik briefly discusses several standards of ethical conduct in science. I will explain the standard of openness from Resnik’s point of view, and argue why it is important to follow this standard in most circumstances in science. I will provide important exceptions to the ethical standard of openness. Also, I will discuss the case of Charles Darwin and by applying the rule of openness, argue why this case was a legitimate exception, and how it is ethically right according to the moral principle of privacy.

    Standards of ethical conduct incorporate basic moral principles and provide a foundation in which scientists can base common morals (Resnik 1998, 53). The ethical standard I will discuss based on Resnik’s views is the rule of openness. Resnik states “Scientists should share data, results, methods, ideas, techniques, and tools. They should allow other scientists to review their work and be open to criticism and new ideas” (Resnik 1998, 58). The ethical standard of openness states that scientists should share and cooperate with other scientists (Resnik 1998,58). It states that scientists should be open and honest about sources of funding for their projects, and also, scientists should allow other members of science community to review their work (Resnik 1998, 58).

    The standard principle of openness is important and should be followed in most circumstances in science. This is because the rule of openness prevents science from becoming biased and narrow (Resnik 1998, 58). When scientists share and observe their work with others, they are able to receive feedback and input from other scientists who might have different viewpoints and ideas (Resnik 1998, 58). Therefore, the outcome would be a collaborate work of a variety of scientists, rather than a strict and a narrow viewpoint of just one scientist (Resnik 1998, 58).

    Also, the rule of openness is important because it promotes trust among the science community as well as the public (Resnik 1998, 58). By sharing data, techniques and methods, scientists are trusting one another with their results and achieves the universal ethical goal of helping others (Resnik 1998, 58). When scientists are open about their work and research, the public starts to suspect that the scientist might be dishonest or untrustworthy about their work (Resnik 1998, 58). Therefore, it is crucial for the scientists to be open as the public would start to distrust science and the scientists would lose funding and support (Resnik 1998, 58). Another reason why the ethical standard of openness is so important is that it advances science (Resnik 1998, 58). Scientists do not have to start their research from the very bottom- they may base their research on previous data and results, which would save time and resources (Resnik 1998, 58).

    Resnik discusses some exceptions to the ethical standard of openness. One of those exceptions is that scientists may choose not to be open if or when their research is incomplete, and they might not want to share to make sure they have the correct data, or to make sure they receive proper credit (Resnik 1998, 59). The concern is that other scientists may use the incomplete work and achieve better results, or achieve the desired results quicker than of the original scientist (Resnik 1998, 59). However, there is no acceptable exception once the research is complete. The data and results should be available to other scientists and the public (Resnik 1998, 59).

    Another important exception to the rule of openness is that a scientist may choose not to be open about their work when they or their work are threatened in any way because of their particular controversial field or topic of research (Resnik 1998, 59). Some controversial matters would be taken highly to criticism and if it is unpopular with the public, it may go as far as to stopping the research all together, and possibly put the scientist in danger (Resnik 1998, 59).
    The case of Charles Darwin is a documented example of where the ethical standard of openness was violated (Resnik 1998, 59). Charles Darwin is one of the first evolutionary biologists, who conducted his research and refined his theory of evolution and natural selection for over two decades (Landry 2003). Darwin made observations that amounted to those theories while he was abroad on a ship called HMS Beagle while travelling near Galapagos Islands (Resnik 1998, 91). However, over this period of time, Darwin did not publish his findings nor share them with anybody, except one person named Joseph Hooker (Resnik 1998, 91). His ideas were kept to himself, and it was only when another biologist/geologist came out with his own idea of natural selection, Darwin decided to announce his theories to the science community (Resnik 1998, 91). Darwin violated the standard of openness because he failed to share his work and data with other scientists, he did not openly discuss his ideas with the public, and he worked mostly alone without input from other people (Resnik 1998, 91).

    However, Charles Darwin’s violation of the ethical standard of openness was a legitimate exception based on the grounds that he wanted to make sure his data and theory was accurate and well-developed, and also, he feared for persecution from the public and the church (Landry 2003). He wanted to make sure he could present a flawless, and solid case on evolution (Landry 2003). Darwin was aware that his ideas would be heavily criticized and analyzed, and he wanted to make sure it was a convincing case (Resnik 1998, 91). Because he was in a time period where religion strictly governed people’s lives, Darwin had to be extremely careful of his controversial ideas as they conflicted with the fundamental basis of creationism (Landry 2003). The fact that he feared for his ongoing controversial research and perhaps his life, concludes that it is an acceptable violation of the ethical standard of openness.

    Charles Darwin’s case cannot be regarded as ethically wrong based on the moral principle of privacy. The principle of privacy states to respect personal privacy and confidentially (Resnik 1998, 22). Darwin following the ethical standard of openness would have resulted in him in violation of this basic moral principle. Darwin wanted to keep his ideas and research to himself and the moral principle of privacy supports his actions. Therefore, the case of Charles Darwin is ethically right, based on the moral principle of privacy.

    Resnik discusses several important ethical rules to follow in science. I have discussed the ethical rule of openness and how it is important to follow this rule in most circumstances. I have discussed important exceptions to the rule of openness. As well, I have discussed the case of Charles Darwin and argued why his case was a legitimate exception to the rule of openness. I have also argued why the case of Darwin was ethically right according to the moral principle of privacy.

    1. 👍 0
    2. 👎 0
  2. it doesnt let me post the whole thing?

    1. 👍 0
    2. 👎 0
  3. Is that the whole thing? That part grammatically seems correct. If you have more , repost.

    1. 👍 0
    2. 👎 0
  4. If you are having trouble copying and pasting, Jess, then type in your paragraphs.

    =)

    1. 👍 0
    2. 👎 0
    👩‍🏫
    Writeacher

Respond to this Question

First Name

Your Response

Similar Questions

  1. english

    Could you let me know if these are correct? Write 5 sentences in which you address changes in your writing: 1) Working with a friend has made my sentence structure better. 2) I now recognize run-one sentences,and try not to use

  2. English

    Select the sentence that contains NO errors in grammar, punctuation, spelling, sentence structure, or word usage. A. Since Jules was a past donor he was not aloud to participate in the State's upcoming election. B. The training

  3. GT LA

    How does the phrase studying grammar function in sentence 4? Sentence 4: I hated studying grammar when I was in school. A) main verb Eliminate B) direct object C) subject complement D) subject of the sentence. subject My answer: D

  4. chemistry

    in one sentence,explain why Bf3 with incomplete octet structure is the preferred structure?

  1. health

    10. Stricter standards intended to improve the health and safety of children in early childhood settings may instead put some children at higher risk because (1 point)implementing more rigorous safety standards tends to increase

  2. school

    1) What are four suggested steps to becoming familiar with early music standards? I. Implement the music standards. II. Consult with a music specialist. III. Check to make sure the music standards are satisfied. IV. Read the music

  3. ENGLISH (LANGUAGE ARTS)

    REcognizing Antecedents http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/pronouns.htm http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_pronuse.html And others: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=recognize+antecedent+grammar =)

  4. grammar

    what is parrallel structure? Parallel structure is making sure that all parts of a series or other sentence constructions are using nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc., in the same order. There are some excellent examples here:

  1. chemistry

    describe briefly how the particular structure of a neuron relates to it's function in the body

  2. English / Grammar

    Please check the following sentences and let me know if they are correct. Thank you in advance!! Rewrite the following sentences, focusing on the grammar area specified before the sentence. If the sentence is already correct,

  3. English

    Can you please help me express the first two questions? I also need you to go through the other questions and tell me if they are grammatically correct. Thank you very much in advance. 1) What role does time play in the narrative

  4. English

    Is the following sentence a complex sentence? As a result of showing my gregarious personaity, I have many friends. No, it's not complex. Before the comma, there needs to be a clause, not a phrase. Did you find my correction

You can view more similar questions or ask a new question.