Post on 26-Dec-2015
1
Ethics of Scientific Research
C. K. Raju
2
Why ethics is important
We rely on “experts” to assess new technologies.
Unethical “expert” opinion may lead to wrong choices
And puts entire society at risk.
3
No social structures to safeguard ethics
Law inadequate to guard against this risk, because law differs from ethics.
Something illegal may be ethical,.– E.g. Gandhi ji broke the unethical salt law.
Something legal may be unethical– E.g., Mashelkar’s 100 trips on WIPO invitation legal, but
After that if he advises government on intellectual property, that is unethical, for it involves conflict of interests.
4
A fundamental problem
Talking about ethics is easy.
BUT
Talk of ethics rarely translates into action.
Why?
5
Bottom-up view
To understand this
I will present a bottom-up view
– which goes from action,
– to ethical principles.
6
Answer obvious
Bottom-up it is obvious – why talk of ethics does not translate to action:
Ethics in action is dangerous.
7
Why ethics is dangerous
In the country of the blind, the two-eyed man is blinded—H. G. Wells.
In an unjust society, ethical action is a threat, and therefore the ethical man is punished.
8
3 personal lessons
9
Lesson 1
As a Ph.D. student (at IIT and ISI Delhi)
I protested plagiarism by my guide.
I was hounded for the next 30 years.
(A student who helped him got the Young Scientist award, Bhatnagar award etc.)
Lesson: it pays to be unethical, and hurts to be ethical.
10
Lesson 2
I resigned from a permanent govt. job at Poona Univ. – on the grounds that “corruption, hence
incompetence, had got institutionalised”.
The Univ. accepted this!
Lesson: Ethical (and competent) people are eliminated one way or another.
11
Lesson 3
Raja Ramanna stated a mathematical absurdity in a seminar.
I objected, and walked out, but others kept quiet. Lesson: Complicity through inaction can be
carried to absurd extremes.
Details.
12
Will still talk of ethics
Having learnt these lessons (and more) why am I still talking of ethics?
Because injustice is not inevitable.
E.g. During the freedom struggle many people maintained high ethical standards.
Injustice prevails because we allow it to.
13
For an ethically cleaner world
Let us try to reduce ethical pollution.
14
Main case
Here is the main case study (bottom-up viewpoint).
15
Time: Towards a Consistent Theory
In my 1994 book, I proposed
1. functional differential equations (FDE).
2. as a new paradigm for physics.
3. and proved this explained key features of quantum mechanics.
16
Reiteration
Please note these three points.
1. Using FDE leads to
2. a new paradigm for physics, and
3. could explain quantum mechanics.
17
Relevance to current technology
FDE approach useful for – molecular dynamics and – many-body problem
Applies to– biotechnology – Nanotechnology, and (nanobiotechnology)– And quantum computing
We can’t solve all-particle Schrodinger equation for a protein molecule, but can try FDEs.
18
Back to the case
The book was published by Kluwer Academic, the most prestigious international publisher in the area.
19
Critical praise
It evoked complimentary reactions and reviews in International journals.
20
Essay Review
Raju writes with ease and deft wit….The… concept…[of FDE]…is exploited with subtlety and elegance by Raju.
... an important book..."
J. F. Woodward (Foundations of Physics )
21
Klir’s review
The book by Raju is an important contribution to our understanding of this difficult concept [time]....
The book is authoritative and written with impeccable clarity…this is an excellent book and I highly recommend it to readers of this journal."
D. J. Klir (Editor, International Journal of General Systems)
22
Referee report
“…truly brilliant. ...The conclusions may warrant close scrutiny, since the custom since Socrates has been for brilliant philosophical critics to tack weak positive conclusions to their analyses."
23
Indian reactions
“Altogether a delightful book” –A. N. Mitra
“fantastic...You are now rising to the level of Bohr and Pauli and others." –A. W. Joshi, Editor, Physics Education
24
Popper
(The book incidentally criticised Popper.)
“I found your critical remarks…very good”—Karl Popper.
25
The Groningen debate
The book also aroused fierce criticism.
In 1999, an entire seminar at Groningen was hijacked into a
– debate over my claim of a “paradigm shift” in physics through FDEs.
H. D. Zeh (Professor of physics, Heidelberg) maintained that I was wrong, and that
– no paradigm shift was necessary.
Most people at seminar sided with Zeh.
26
Its resolution
Eventually Zeh’s confusion was resolved
My 2004 article in Foundations of Physics (which Zeh edits) clarified why.
– FDEs are needed
– and lead to a paradigm shift.
– As further underlined by the first solution I obtained of FDEs in a serious physical context (hydrogen atom).
27
Delayed understanding
So it seemed that common scientists took 10 years to understand, but light had finally dawned.
I also published an account for the layperson in The Eleven Pictures of Time (Sage 2003)
Both books were in the news for reasons that I will go into later.
28
After all this, a year later…
29
Atiyah’s Einstein lecture
Sir Michael Atiyah gave the Einstein lecture.
On 21 Oct 2005, on the centenary of Einstein’s 1905 relativity paper.
(Atiyah has – two “Nobel” prizes: the Fields medal and the Abel
prize, and – is a former President of the Royal Society.)
30
Atiyah repeats my claims
During this talk Atiyah repeated my 3 claims that:
1. Using FDE leads to
2. a new paradigm for physics, and
3. could explain quantum mechanics.
31
But adds another claim!
He added an original fourth claim:
“Don’t forget that I suggested it”.
(That was his sole original contribution!)
32
Atiyah’s second lecture
Atiyah repeated this claim 3 days later at the Kavli Institute of Theoretical Physics.
The KITP lecture was videocast, like the Einstein lecture.
My son doing PhD in string theory at Harvard watched this lecture, and informed me.
33
My first reaction
I did not scream “plagiarism”.
As I was travelling (in Australia and Singapore)
I asked my son to send details of my work to Atiyah.
He did that on 26 Oct 2005.
Atiyah responded on 28 October.
34
My second reaction
I had reason for deep suspicion. (Will elaborate later.)
But I wrote a polite letter to Atiyah.
Instead of stating my suspicion I relied (implicitly) on professional ethics.
35
Professional ethics
The American Mathematical Society’s (AMS) ethics states:
“A claim of independence may not be based on ignorance [of past work]”
36
Rationale for the ethics
Why are claims of “independent rediscovery” regarded as unethical?
Because it is so easy to feign ignorance.
And so hard to prove that a person consulted a book in the library.
37
Atiyah’s claim was unethical
Given these professional ethics.
Atiyah should have understood that his claim was unethical.
So he should have apologised.
38
And Atiyah apologised!
BUT
Only for the delay in responding!
39
The matter could have stopped there.
But it did not …
40
The second “oversight”
Atiyah’s claim to my ideas was repeated by (G. W. Johnson and M. Walker).
In a prominent article in the Notices of the AMS in June-July 2006.
They called it “Atiyah’s hypothesis”.
41
Second “oversight” (contd)
Atiyah saw the article before publication (as Walker admitted).
At this time Atiyah certainly knew of my work.
But my work again went unacknowledged.
42
Belated acknowledgment
After a prolonged protest
An inconspicuous letter by Walker acknowledged the fact of my earlier work.
Appeared in Notices of the AMS April 2007.
43
But no other remedy
Only the mere FACT of my prior work was acknowledged.
Though ethics was clearly violated.
No apology or other remedy was offered.
44
Wrong precedent
This set a wrong precedent. In effect, it
– Accepted a claim of “independent rediscovery”– Based on supposed ignorance of past work
Contrary to stated AMS ethics.
45
Encourages plagiarists
The process would encourage plagiarists.
Why acknowledge past work beforehand?
If the sole penalty for non-acknowledgment is
Post-facto acknowledgment.
46
Second “oversight”: implications
Claiming a “second oversight” through a third party is another systematic way to bypass ethics.
By teams of plagiarists acting together.
47
Is this ethical?
These grave implications for AMS ethics need to be discussed.
So I wrote a letter: “Is this ethical?”
To the Notices of the AMS.
Pointing out the second “oversight” and its ethical implications.
48
Onus of proof
On AMS ethics, onus of proof not on me.
Onus on Atiyah to be knowledgeable (about past work).
However, I gave further proof of copying.
49
Proof of copying: Atiyah’s mistake
On my epistemic test those who copy, tend to make conceptual mistakes.
(Since they lack full understanding.)
Atiyah had made a conceptual mistake.
50
The mistake
Atiyah proposed a hypothesis, where no hypothesis was necessary.
(My point: existing physics compels FDE.)
51
Proof of mistake for the layperson
Even a non-expert can understand this mistake:
Atiyah’s audience at KITP included David Gross (Nobel Prize in physics 2004).
The video footage shows Gross vigorously pointing out Atiyah’s mistake,
which Atiyah did not then understand.
52
Belatedly disowns the phrase
(Atiyah now disowns the phrase “Atiyah’s hypothesis” though – he did not object to the catchy phrase when it
helped him get huge publicity through the Johnson-Walker article.
– And the point is what he did
– not who coined the phrase. )
53
AMS: Two systems of ethics
The Notices of the AMS refused to publish my letter.
AMS has thereby proved that it has two systems of ethics:
– One to be stated– And the other to be acted upon.
If I was wrong, AMS should have published my letter and refuted my claim publicly.
54
Petition against celebrity justice
A number of academics protested.
As an affected party, the AMS should have given me at least one chance to state my side publicly.
Signatories to the petiton included top Indian academics
M. G. K. Menon, A. N. Mitra, Puspha Bhargava, Ashish Nandy, S. P. Shukla, Sumit Sarkar, Harish Trivedi, G. N. Devy etc.
55
AMS: two systems of ethics (contd)
The petition was just ignored by the AMS.
(Another implicit admission of guilt!)
56
Einstein’s mistake
To keep matters simple, my letter to AMS did not mention the grounds for my initial deep suspicion.
My theory of FDEs corrected Einstein’s mistake.
(Einstein and other after him had incorrectly converted FDEs to ODEs)
57
Poincare-Einstein
Einstein claimed to have discovered relativity “independently” claiming ignorance of Poincare’s work published earlier.
But he made a mistake in understanding the point about FDE notice by Poincare.
My books/papers mentioned this.
58
That is just to explain the real magnitude of the dispute
And why someone like Atiyah covets credit for the idea.
But also something strange here…
59
Strange coincidence? Or…
Atiyah’s claim to my ideas came during his Einstein lecture, on the centenary of Einstein’s relativity paper of 1905.
But Atiyah did not mention either Einstein’s mistake or Poincare (or me) in this connection.
Fantastic “coincidence”: The hundred year-old mistake was “accidentally” and “coincidentally” corrected during Atiyah’s Einstein lecture?
60
There is a simpler and more natural explanation.
61
Natural explanation
My stand on Einstein well known to experts and even laypersons (reported by the press).
natural that Atiyah would have consulted my book while preparing for his Einstein lecture.
(Atiyah certainly knows about the Einstein-Poincare dispute and mentioned it in an interview he gave to the local press that day.)
62
Atiyah case: summary
First “oversight” involves a fantastic coincidence.
Second “oversight” is totally unacceptable.
Atiyah’s mistake proves copying.
AMS is suppressing the matter, contrary to its stated ethics.
63
Implications in the Indian context
What does this case mean for us?
64
My ideas go well beyond Poincare’s.
The ideas have been around for a long time.
They have been published and acclaimed in international forums.
65
No room for new ideas
But our “experts” did not allocate a single paisa for further research on this idea.
(Someone working for the Nobel prize committee understood the value of the ideas long ago, and wrote to the UGC to create a special position for me, but even then nothing happened.)
66
Our “eminent experts” persistently made wrong decisions, because they value
– Neither Ethics– Nor scientific content
Power is all they value.
67
No penalty for wrong decisions
The penalty for wrong decisions is borne by others.
Then there are always excuses.
(For persistently wrong decisions– There are persistent excuses!)
68
Wasted expenditure on research
Under these conditions government expenditure on research is wasted.
The only outcome from theoretical research is – (a) credit, and– (b) lead time.
69
Contrary yardstick
The yardstick used to judge new ideas is popular social approval in the West.
By that time it is too late, for the idea is not new. The lead time is dissipated
If the yardstick enforces mimesis, why spend on original research?
70
There is also no structure to ensure that credit for research remains in the country.
Only official agency is the INSA ethics committee.
71
No social structures for ethics
I wrote to Mashelkar, President of INSA, so that INSA ethics committee could take up the Atiyah matter.
Mashelkar did not respond.
The reason became clear a month later: Mashelkar was himself involved in a case of plagiarism!
Taking up a high-profile case on ethics would have hurt him personally.
72
Counter productive expenditure
Because of lack of ethics, government spending on research can be counter-productive.
Unethical people try to grab the money.
They are a liability to those who do research without grants.
73
Complained to SSV
Society for Scientific Values started by good people with good intentions.
But now headed by K. L. Chopra (also in the INSA ethics committee, which kept quiet in the Mashelkar case).
74
The 64th EC of the SSV noted that “at least 3 experts have found that the complaint of Dr. C.K Raju against Atiyah is valid.”
Subsequently, the SSV suddenly closed the case stating that although a prima facie case is made out.
Nothing further is required!
75
Conclusions
A proper ethics monitoring system is needed
If ethics is not monitored, State funding for research is counter-productive.
Ethics monitoring should be kept rigorously outside the control of existing science managers.
Else they will take it over and “fix” it.
76
77
78
Lesson 3: Details
In response to my question pointing out a contradiction in his talk,
Raja Ramanna replied. “Every matrix has a diagonal, even a rectangular
matrix has a diagonal”
To prove this he drew a rectangle and its diagonal on the board!
79
Here is a 4 x 3 matrix. What is its diagonal?
Any child can see that it has no diagonal.
But Ramanna said it has a diagonal, and he was an “eminent scientist” (and Minister S&T).
?
?
Return to main