Forums / General Discussion Forums / Ad Infinitum / Ethics in Astronomical Research
Ethics in Astronomical Research
[This is crossposted by request from the aavso-discussion mailing list. -Matthew]
Hello everyone,
The following is not directly related to variable star astronomy per se, although it does relate to one aspect of scientific research, and so is relevant to the purposes of the aavso-discussion list.
I have recently been reviewing the AAS Ethics Statement that was released back in January of this year. It is a document developed by a working group within the American Astronomical Society, and approved by the AAS Council at the winter meeting. Many of the things in the document are probably intuitive to most, but it is still important to have them presented in a formal way. Science is a social endeavor, and it requires an ethical foundation to function best.
Their statement makes for interesting reading for me both as a professional astronomer and as a member of the AAS, but it occurred to me that it might be of interest to the AAVSO member and observer communities as well. Here is the link if you are interested in reading it:
http://aas.org/about/ethics_statement
To my knowledge, this is the only statement of professional ethics that relates specifically to the field of astronomy, although most of the statements of principle are relevant to all of the sciences. The IAU does not have its own statement, but refers to that of the International Council for Science:
I'd be interested to hear opinions by members and observers on how such statements are relevant to the AAVSO, and whether the AAS statement is comprehensive or remains incomplete. You're welcome to contact me privately although I think it would be an interesting conversation for the list.
Clear skies,
Matthew
Addendum: Lee Anne Willson pointed out to me that there is a thread in the AAS blog that contains some discussion of the AAS statement prior to its publication that might also interest people:
http://forums.aas.org/viewforum.php?f=24&sid=fcef80028c039d3676f5fc7be94...
Reading the AAS forum thread was very enlightening. I recommend everyone take a few minutes to peruse it as a window into the workings of astronomy. In particular, the comments regarding coauthorship made me think of an issue that has perplexed me in the past. Many years ago I was in a situation where an esteemed astronomer offered to put their name on the coauthor list of a paper I was working on. This astronomer was well established and the paper was so minor that it would have been of no benefit to them. So I asked why they wanted to be on the list and they replied that their name would add credibility to the paper. (I won't comment on whether I added the name or not.) Fast forward a few years. I was working on this paper as part of an astrophysics course at Tufts, using data I had collected on my own years prior. The professor of the course offered editing advice and acted as a sounding board for some ideas prior to submission to a journal. Greatful for the advice, I offered to make the professor a coauthor. The professor refused, saying that they did not contribute enough to warrant it. So it's made me wonder about the aspect of adding coauthors who give advice, but don't contribute hard core research. On the positive side, if the prospective coauthor legitimately stands behind the research then it kind of makes sense to make them a coauthor. The message it sends to the world is clear and, in my opinion, valuable. The primary author may be a new researcher with no track record, so having experienced coauthors would give us something else to judge the merits of the paper on. Proposals certainly work this way. On the negative side, it could be seen as lessening the contribution of the other coauthors or as "brown nosing" (as mentioned by a commentor in the AAS forum). I guess if you accept a strict definition of the term, the author list should only be of those who contributed to the paper - not those who merely agree with it. So that's the policy I go with now. But I'm still not entirely sure where the line is. What do you think?