Mar 17, 2008
Seven Deadly Sins for Scientists
Given recent pronouncements from a certain organisation based in Rome, I thought it was time to list the Seven Deadly Sins for Scientists. Science is often referred to as being without morals and behaving unethically. Well, science itself cannot be either immoral nor unethical, it is only humans who can have those characteristics in how they choose to use science.
But first a quick mention for some fellow sinners. Over on Depth First, the morals of scientific publishing come under the spotlight, while Eye on DNA gives us the Seven Deadly Sins of Genetics. Carol Goble, about whose myGrid work I have written several times, shares her Seven Deadly Sins of Bioinformatics. A rather bizarre Seven Deadly Sins of Obesity appeared in Aussie publication ScienceAlert on March 7 – Consumption obsession, Time pressure, Parenting pressures, Technology, Car reliance, Marketing of unhealthy food, and Confusing advice – only a couple of which look like personal behaviours while the others are simply properties of one’s environment.
The traditional sins are: Lust, Gluttony,
Greed,
Sloth, Wrath,
Envy, PrideLust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy, Pride. (In the original Latin: Superbia, Avaritia, Luxuria, Invidia, Gula, Ira, Acedia, as listed by Pope Gregory the Great in the 6th Century AD. Of course, they’re pretty much standard behavioural characteristics most of us do not want to see in others, but are loathe to recognise in ourselves. Incidentally, it is no coincidence that the words, dissolution, solvation and salvation are connected.
A visual update of this centuries-old moral code was posted on Sciencebase in February 2007 (Seven Deadly Sins) but has been receiving renewed interest because of the Pope’s own update to the capital vices. His new list is as follows: 1. genetic engineering, 2. polluting, 3. drug dealing, 4. abortion, 5. causing social injustice, 6. pedophilia, 7. obscene wealth. They’re not quite as catchy as the original list of cardinal vices, are they? I wonder how quickly the phrase genetic engineering will become redundant as science advances over the next few centuries.
Anyway, after all that waffle, here is a first draft of the six deadly sins of science, I’m leaving a slot empty for Sciencebase readers to fill…what’s the seventh sin of science?
- Plagiarism
- Lying
- Self-plagiarism
- Vanity
- Vituperation
- Procrastination
- ?
Randall, I think you’re probably right. It was published in an April, perhaps on the 1st even, but I don’t think it’s a joke…
db
@David, Checked out the link… ROFL – I think there are less names in the credits for the “Lord of the Rings” movies.
@Randall – Yep, the words per head count can be very low. The early papers that came out of the Human Genome Project, I believe, broke some records with huge numbers of co-workers. I can only assume that some of the people cited didn’t even know each other’s emails let alone share a lab bench. Then there’s a physics paper from 1998 that has well over 400 authors (estimated from a quick scan just now) who are at 41 different laboratories. There’s a whole blog post in this subject alone.
Of course, a simple Latin phrase added after the first author name hides a multitude of sins – et alia
db
@David “…having more than 200 authors…”
LOL… on most papers I’ve read, that would make about a 1-10 word contribution by each.
@John – related to that exploitation angle is the sin of having more than 200 authors on a single paper, which seems to happen with increasing frequency in particle physics and genomics where everyone from Prof to tea trolley operative gets a mention.
db