Reviewing papers presenting immoral research

[MPat]

Performing immoral research is obviously immoral. But I wonder: how should reviewers of papers where such research is presented (or just participants of a conference where such research is presented) act?

For example, should the reviewer refuse to review such a paper in order to avoid to have anything to do with such research? Or should he review it, lest someone who does not care about immorality of such research get to review it? If he chooses to review, should he point out all the flaws that are not related to morality, because he has been asked to do so (also giving a reason to reject the paper)? Or should he avoid doing so, lest that helps that research? Should he point out the immorality straightforwardly? Or should he choose a more subtle approach, for example, asking about other applications of methods or results? Or even to stay silent on it, lest this mention results in everything being ignored?

Or are many options possible?

 

[e_c]

You should always try to avoid giving occasion to sin (within reason, i.e. proportion) but knowledge itself is never evil.

 

[MPat]

You should always try to avoid giving occasion to sin (within reason, i.e. proportion) but knowledge itself is never evil.

I guess I should clarify my question: it is not about simply reading papers, it is about “peer review”.

That is, the situation would be like this:

1. Dr. X is invited to serve as a reviewer at a conference or journal.
2. He is asked to review a paper concerning some immoral research (let’s say, embryonic stem cell research), given a review form to fill out.

So, what is the right thing to do at this point?

Reading the paper is pretty certainly acceptable, as Dr. X is in a position similar to a position in which a censor giving “Nihil Obstat” is, and censor obviously can read what he has been given.

But censor has been asked to find out if the work contradicts Catholic doctrine, while reviewer has been asked to find out if the paper has “scientific novelty”, if the language is clear and the like…

 

[e_c]

It seems to depend on many variables, which would determine the remoteness of the cooperation and risk of scandal. Presumably, your individual actions would have little effect on the actual commission of the immoral acts themselves and their perceived morality, unless you have enormous pull in the field or institution.

You might try to avoid commenting, but you also might look to put these papers down… Either way, it could result in more immoral activity or less. It really depends on the specific situation.

You might also make your opinion on this research known publicly somehow. You might also hide in the shadows and subvert the efforts. Same thing… It will depend.

 

[Trident_H]

I guess I should clarify my question: it is not about simply reading papers, it is about “peer review”.

That is, the situation would be like this:

1. Dr. X is invited to serve as a reviewer at a conference or journal.
2. He is asked to review a paper concerning some immoral research (let’s say, embryonic stem cell research), given a review form to fill out.

So, what is the right thing to do at this point?

Reading the paper is pretty certainly acceptable, as Dr. X is in a position similar to a position in which a censor giving “Nihil Obstat” is, and censor obviously can read what he has been given.

But censor has been asked to find out if the work contradicts Catholic doctrine, while reviewer has been asked to find out if the paper has “scientific novelty”, if the language is clear and the like…

There’s nothing wrong with checking a paper to make sure it followed the right proceedures and did the right things. I mean if there was a problem with reading over research that bites into our morals then only immoral people would be able to review it. Which wouldn’t exactly be a great way to make sure it was at least sound science and honest.

I mean who’s more likely to find a flaw in some paper on stem cells? Someone who’s panting for more of the same? Or someone who’s got more than a grain of salt held back for good measure?

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

I assume the reviewer is doing research in the same area as the paper under review or someone else would have been asked to do the review. So the potential reviewer had already decided that such research falls within what he or she considers acceptable research. I don’t think the potential reviewer would be having moral qualms about the nature of the research.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Peer review is not slavery. Once Can just not review a morally offensive paper…
There really is no quandary here.

 

[MPat]

It seems to depend on many variables, which would determine the remoteness of the cooperation and risk of scandal. Presumably, your individual actions would have little effect on the actual commission of the immoral acts themselves and their perceived morality, unless you have enormous pull in the field or institution.

You might try to avoid commenting, but you also might look to put these papers down… Either way, it could result in more immoral activity or less. It really depends on the specific situation.

You might also make your opinion on this research known publicly somehow. You might also hide in the shadows and subvert the efforts. Same thing… It will depend.

I guess it might well be that many options are possible, and choosing among them is a matter of prudence…

There’s nothing wrong with checking a paper to make sure it followed the right proceedures and did the right things. I mean if there was a problem with reading over research that bites into our morals then only immoral people would be able to review it. Which wouldn’t exactly be a great way to make sure it was at least sound science and honest.

I mean who’s more likely to find a flaw in some paper on stem cells? Someone who’s panting for more of the same? Or someone who’s got more than a grain of salt held back for good measure?

Peer review is not slavery. Once Can just not review a morally offensive paper…
There really is no quandary here.

And I guess that both of those ideas might be good, given specific circumstances…

I assume the reviewer is doing research in the same area as the paper under review or someone else would have been asked to do the review. So the potential reviewer had already decided that such research falls within what he or she considers acceptable research. I don’t think the potential reviewer would be having moral qualms about the nature of the research.

Not necessarily.

For example, embryonic stem cell research also requires storing the cells, taking microscopic pictures of them, storing the data etc. Each of those parts could result in a separate paper in a field that is not “embryonic stem cell research”, but “chemistry”, “medical imaging”, “databases”.

Thus, someone working in those fields might end up reviewing such a paper.

Also, sometimes a reviewer can be sent a paper that is far from his field. An editor can make a mistake, he might have no better candidates available at the moment, - or it might be that he specifically wants an “outside” opinion.