The American Geophysical Union (AGU) recently decided to treat harassment (including sexual harassment) as scientific misconduct. This puts harassment on par with major ethical violations in science such as data fabrication and plagiarism. Since the AGU has adopted this into their ethical guidelines, members who are found guilty of harassment can be subject to such penalties as being banned from presenting at conferences and being forbidden from publishing in AGU journals. For scientists trying to advance (or simply maintain) their professional careers, these punishments can have serious consequences—thus they have real teeth.
This decision was motivated by the fact that the echelons of science (like everywhere else) includes people who misuse their status, power and authority to harass those beneath them. As should be expected, some of the harassment is sexual in nature and is directed by men at women. Almost three quarters of women have reported being harassed in the field and over a quarter have reported being sexually assaulted. While some might doubt the exact numbers, such levels of misbehavior are quite consistent with the stories that are known to almost everyone in higher education.
While there are a variety of reasons that women are a small minority in the sciences, the harassment and misogyny are clearly factors. Philosophy, as an academic field, all to often suffers from such problems, so I see no reason to doubt that the sciences are any different. I have also heard, anecdotally, stories from colleagues in the sciences. Such bad behavior is unethical on the face of it and is made even worse when one considers the harmful consequences not only to the women harmed, but to the endeavor of science itself. Laying aside the moral concerns, sexual assault is a crime and sexual harassment in the workplace is generally against the law. As such, there are excellent reasons to combat harassment in the sciences.
One area of concern is parallel to that of how academic institutions handle sexual harassment. Scientific organizations, like universities, do have some power over their members. However, they are imbued with the power of the state: they cannot conduct criminal investigators on their own, nor can they conduct criminal trials. As such, it can be argued that the criminal offenses should be left to the police (who, it must be said, do not always handle them well). The scientific organization or university can then impose penalties on those who are convicted of crimes.
One problem with this approach is that there is misconduct that falls short of a crime that still merits punishment. For example, academic misconduct is not a crime, but should have consequences. As such, it can be argued that organizations should also conduct their own investigations and trials to address such incidents. This raises the concern that these organizations are likely (as has been shown in the case of universities) to conduct their investigations unfairly. That is, either acting to protect their reputation at the expense of victims or victimizing the accused to create the appearance that they are taking the matter seriously. While this is a reasonable concern, it is not telling against having organizations engage in policing the relevant behavior of their members. Rather, it is concern about the integrity of the organizations in this regulation. Thus, the practical and moral concern is to ensure that the process is fair.
Another point of concern is classifying such harassment in the sciences as scientific misconduct. Harassment, sexual or otherwise, is clearly misconduct, unprofessional and wrong—even it does not each the level of a crime. It is certainly harmful to scientists and science, but it can be argued that while it is misconduct, it is not scientific misconduct simply because it happens in the sciences. One obvious way to argue for this is to consider the matter of academic misconduct.
At a university, there are certain actions (such as plagiarism) that count as academic misconduct. There are also actions, such as sexual harassment, that are misconduct, but not academic misconduct. To illustrate, if a student plagiarizes a paper, then they have committed academic misconduct. If a student sexually harasses their fellow students in class, they are engaged in misconduct in an academic setting, but it is not academic misconduct. Even if their misdeeds harm the academic performance of their fellow students. This is because the sexual harassment is not academic in nature; it just takes place in an academic setting. To illustrate, I can fail a student for plagiarizing a paper—since that is relevant to their academic performance. I cannot justly fail a student for sexual harassment—that behavior is irrelevant to their grade. I can, obviously, contact the campus authorities about the student’s behavior and have them removed from the class.
In the case of sexual harassment in the field, lab or other scientific setting, this is clearly misconduct. However, it does not seem to be misconduct of a scientific nature. Rather, it is misconduct that takes place in a scientific setting. To say that a scientist who harasses is thus engaged in bad science would be an error—they are behaving badly and being unprofessional, but that is distinct from their scientific activities. This is analogous to a student who does the academic work properly but engages in terrible behavior towards fellow students. As another point, if a scientist committed murder, that would not be regarded as scientific misconduct—even if they murdered another scientist. It would be murder. Likewise, harassment is not an abuse of science, but an abuse of people.
While some might be outraged at this view, I am not claiming that scientists should thus be free to harass because that behavior is not scientific misconduct. I would no more claim this than I would claim that students should be allowed to assault fellow students because doing so would not be academic misconduct. Rather, there should be penalties for both.
Scientists who engage in harassment within their field should face the relevant legal and professional consequences. In terms of professional consequences, an organization could impose the same penalties that the AGU does—a scientist who violates professional ethics by engaging in harassment could be excluded from presenting at conferences and publishing; just as a student who does not engage in academic misconduct but engages in harassment or assault can be expelled from a school.
Maybe you’re asking the wrong question – the answer to yours is “Of course not”. I’m not sure that anyone is saying that it is. From the linked article (regardless of the headline):
“…[the] (AGU) took the bold step of revising its ethics policy to treat harassment (including sexual harassment), discrimination and bullying as scientific misconduct, with the same types of penalties for offenders.
Treating it as scientific misconduct and calling it scientific misconduct are two different things. The former is a matter of offense and punishment, the latter is a matter of definition. It’s not any different than trying a juvenile offender as an adult.
So in this, I agree with you. Harassment is not an abuse of science, it is an abuse of people. But I don’t think anyone is trying to make the case that harassment is scientific misconduct by definition, only by punishment.
I think a better question might be, “Is it acceptable to apply the same punishment …?” etc.
From a punitive standpoint, the argument seems to be that Title IX penalties, which would be the standard in academia, don’t go far enough to punish the offender, and by treating sexual harassment as scientific misconduct you would be hitting the transgressor where it hurts – giving more teeth to the law.
On the other hand, this is a kind of broader self-flagellation, in terms of the pure advancement of knowledge. By removing a researcher from the scientific community, you may improve the community in terms of its social standing and diversity, but you forego valid and perhaps valuable research in the loftier pursuits. You can put the offender in prison, but he can publish from there.
A similar ethical dilemma surrounds the use of medical data obtained by the Nazis during WWII.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-ethics-of-using-medical-data-from-nazi-experiments
There are some differences, of course. in the case of the Nazis, the data itself was obtained through grossly immoral and horrific means, including maiming, torture, and murder. In the case today, the data was obtained (presumably) through proper research by immoral people. But in both cases, the knowledge gained is spurned by the community, declared invalid or untouchable based on the behavior of the individuals who produced it.
By removing a researcher from the scientific community, you may improve the community in terms of its social standing and diversity, but you forego valid and perhaps valuable research in the loftier pursuits. You can put the offender in prison, but he can publish from there.
…
in the case of the Nazis, the data itself was obtained through grossly immoral and horrific means, including maiming, torture, and murder.
Goodwin’s Law of course, but it was inevitable. What is interesting in referencing those Germans of that time (ahem) is how a fairly intelligent, advanced civilization like they were publicly turned their back on what they called “Jewish science”. As fortuitous for the world as that was, and perhaps in a sense inevitable, it put that power into the hands of their enemies. While much of the knowledge that came out of the immoral and horrific means of testing was not very useful, pretending the useful parts are somehow not real will only put the power of that knowledge into the hands of others, good or bad others we don’t know. But you can’t control the minds and actions of everyone. Perhaps such people move to Russia or China or some place where they have the freedom to publish and proclaim their ideas. How ironic would that be?
…”Goodwin’s Law of course…
Not sure that applies, actually. The comparison isn’t really to Hitler or the Nazis, but rather the ethical dilemmas presented to physicians and researchers in choosing to use their ill-gotten data.
For example, and from the article I linked, in 1989 the EPA considered air pollution regulations on phosgene, a toxic gas used in the manufacture of pesticides and plastics. Phosgene was also used in chemical warfare in the Gulf War. The EPA studies on the effects on humans was limited to extrapolation and interpretation of data resulting from animal experiments. However, during WWII, the Nazis compiled extensive data on the effect of phosgene on humans, but this research was barred by the EPA.
“The Nazi phosgene data could have saved the lives of the residents who live near the manufacturing plant. It had the potential to save the lives of our American Troops stationed in the Persian Gulf, in the event of a chemical attack by Sadam Hussein. People’s lives were severely threatened. Should the EPA have used the Nazi data or ignore it?”
There are many examples of valid research conducted by the Nazis that produced valuable data that can be used to save lives or further research in various areas, but the data is considered tainted by virtue of the manner in which it was obtained, and is often barred from use, as the EPA barred the phosgene data.
To prevent scientists from publishing or presenting valid data because they have been accused of sexual harassment is similar, conceptually – it is using human behavior as a measure of the value of scientific fact.
Not sure that applies, actually.
I was being (slightly) facetious. I generally agree with you however there is a legitimate issue regarding slippery slopes (which of course Mike says don’t exist) and similar problems of slowly eroding ethics. I don’t know where the line is but it exists somewhere. A utilitarian strawman might argue that in the context of specific unethical research done for sufficiently big picture purposes, and depending on how unethical the research (some argue that much of the research done using animals is unethical), that ultimately the unethical is in fact ethical.
I believe that there is something called “The General’s Dilemma”, not to be confused with “The Two Generals Problem”, can’t find anything on this googling but I do recall it from decades ago regarding suicide missions. Is it ethical to send a platoon out on a mission from which you are quite certain they have no chance of returning from if it distracts the enemy to a sufficient degree to save an entire company/regiment/etc.
Either way, we are both discussing life-or-death ethics in the context of relatively benign (and often faked) claims of sexual harassment.
I wonder what would happen if a researcher, after ten years of intense research and equally intense sexual harassment, were to discover say, a solution to perpetual motion or a cure for cancer. Would he be denied the opportunity to publish or present his work on the basis of his behavior? Is this different from say, the blackballing of Kevin Spacey or Garrison Keillor? Is that different from the blackballing of Zero Mostel or the other “Hollywood Ten” for their presumed association with the Communist Party?
In the 1950’s, Communism was out, harassment was OK. Today it’s the opposite. Where will we be in another 50 years?
Maybe there should just be an income tax surcharge levied on people accused of sexual harassment.
One additional comment on your post –
“…As should be expected, some of the harassment is sexual in nature and is directed by men at women.”
It should also be noted that some of the harassment, also sexual in nature, is directed by by women at men. Much sexual harassment goes unreported based on many factors – personal embarrassment and social stigma being among them. As such, researchers on this subject believe that men are far less likely to report harassment incidents than women, and that the gap between men and women victims is much smaller than previously believed.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0003122412451728
I suspect this is yet another policy that will hurt those it is ostensibly trying to help.
This will discourage men from hiring women due to the added risk.
Lots of scientists are on the autism spectrum. I suspect a lot of autistic behavior is perceived by women as creepy harassment.
When I was in grad school I had an advisor that didn’t treat students well. For example, he tried to tell me that I was “not allowed “ to read certain scientific papers that he did not agree with.
It wasn’t hard to find another advisor.
You weren’t per chance recently reading this, were you?
https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/the-5-worst-things-about-being-a-genius/
I found the Good Will Hunting excerpt and also this quote entertaining:
That’s a good one and so very true. Years ago, after the USSR collapsed, I remember reading that we sent a bunch of Harvard economists to “help” them with their economy. They have probably never forgiven us for sending those Harvard guys.
Off topic, but this is great:
So President Putin, my advice for you is to go Full Fake!
Tito and Franco, for example, both wore colorful military uniforms with lots of Goering-style medals, but Tito had a snazzy Red Star on his cap. He would wear the uniform of a bloody military dictator but talk about peace, non-alignment, freeing the poor, etc. Not Franco, no, the fool was too honest for that. He just wanted to talk about crushing the Communists and the Masons. In the end, of course, Spain turned out to be a much better place to live than did Yugoslavia (RIP), but Franco (and Pinochet in Chile vs Castro in Cuba) would get no credit for that.
If you go Full Fake, then it will be OK for our President to meet you. Nobody will object. Get on MSNBC and decry the evils of imperialism in Africa and Latin America; quote Marx; talk about Frantz Fanon. You can do it. The Progs in the West will eat it up!
Regards to Sergei Lavrov and tell him I think of him often and of our days at the UN. Ask him if he remembers being trapped in a car with me in a Swiss park . . . a funny story that . . . please don’t have him shot because of it . . .
Go Fake!
http://www.thediplomad.com/