Page 1 of 3
European Journal of Applied Sciences – Vol. 11, No. 2
Publication Date: April 25, 2023
DOI:10.14738/aivp.112.14055.
Gurevitz, M. (2023). An International High Court for Scientific Debates is Now Required. European Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol
- 11(2). 289-291.
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
An International High Court for Scientific Debates is Now
Required
Michael Gurevitz
Department of Plant Molecular Biology and Ecology
George S. Wise Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University
Ramat Aviv 69978, Tel Aviv, Israel
The borderline of ethics in science is often unclear and occasionally questionable. Over- ambition in a highly competitive scientific environment may not only lead to great discoveries,
but also to fraudulence as public recognition, promotion or rewards are tempting. To better
control the authenticity and trueness of scientific output, a protecting system that involves the
entire scientific community has long ago been established and is still operative nowadays. This
international system controls scientific output and involves worldwide reviewers and selected
recognized leaders serving in editorial boards of scientific journals. Not only that this system
increased dramatically the spread of 'oven hot' findings, thus promoting communication and
collaboration opportunities, it also constituted a barrier on scientific misconducts in that each
study is reviewed and publication must be approved by a selected scientific leader (editor). Yet,
upon further contemplation it appears that this control mechanism is quite naïve as it almost
entirely relies on educational values, integrity, and trust among scientists. Although this system
is quite rigid and for centuries has proven efficiency in praising novelty and quality, it is still
limited in diminishing 'trash results' or identifying fabrications and deceptive data that
occasionally find their way to the public domain (1). Another problematic aspect of this
scientific evaluation system pertains to conflicts over priorities of discoveries and proprietary,
which may affect either reputation and scientific recognition or commercialization and
financial profit. An example of an international dispute, that had shaken both the Academia and
the public, was between scientists of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda Maryland, and
the Pasteur Institute in Paris on the discovery of the HIV virus. The decision about French
priority, ensued by a Nobel win, rested on scientific calculations of experts and witnesses, but
was not totally free of political argumentations (almost inevitable in todays' science), and thus
incited an opposition unsatisfied with the way that led to this decision. "Just imagine the sour
feelings of a world-perpetuated scientist, confident about his decency and priority, following
such a 'shower' in public eyes" said an HIV expert with sympathy for the American side. Could
this decision be different, e.g., Nobel prize sharing, if brought in front of a scientific international
ethical court, perhaps with a knowledgeable jury, who would analyze this debate since the very
beginning of collaboration between the two laboratories?
Accordingly, the obvious question is whether a system established centuries ago is still valid
nowadays, or in other words, do unproven trust and integrity provide sufficient immunity to
protect from misconduct or settle international disputes. Numerous incidents of scientific
fraudulency that gained publicity have been exposed at leading institutions where results are
often challenged by others, but what can be done with a large volume of delinquent data
published under minute control? When such data accumulates, it may delay true progress,
Page 2 of 3
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 290
European Journal of Applied Sciences (EJAS) Vol. 11, Issue 2, April-2023
mislead many who have trust in the system, and even hinder the development and marketing
of important products (e.g., new medications). No doubt, high quality research with novel
conceptions normally passes through the rigid formal evaluation system, yet it is mostly based
upon belief in decency of the researchers, integrity of the reviewers, and quality of the 'key
holders' (journal editors). Under illusive 'blue sky and green meadows' of scientific freedom
and optimism, yet with limited control and increase in technical and computational power, may
we not fear an expansion in misconduct attempts? Indeed, a glimpse into COPE home site
(Committee on Publication Ethics; http://publicationethics.org/about established in the UK
already in 1997) exposes a growing wave of scientific fabrications in recent years.
This reality may be even more distressing should an unethical misconduct be performed by one
of the 'key holders'. Nomination of an editor requires world scientific reputation besides
personal and administrative skills. Once elected, the credit and support by the board of
directors or controlling council provides high immunity and power regarding decisions about
prevailing topics. But how can this mechanism restrain an editor from sin, such as promote
his/her own agenda, or use the journal as a platform for publishing conceptions that do not
conform to pure scientific rules, or even provide false information and ideas sometimes to
irritate on purpose? Ironically, the hands of the scientific community are tied, even in cases
where a 'key holder' betrays his devotion to the scope of the journal and uses his power to
promote his own sometimes deceptive ideas. Under such circumstances only a firm supervising
board of directors may be able to make the necessary changes and correct the damage, but
regretfully not revert it. Not only a non-ethical scientific misconduct occurred, but also
invaluable space in a scientific journal has been misused. Moreover, clever rationalization of a
deceptive initiative backed up by scientific reputation and enormous credentials may enable a
'key holder' protect his false initiative disarming any public protest or demand to remove him
from chair. Such incidents are difficult to handle in the lack of an authority that can objectively
deal with and enforce ethical principles.
For these reasons and with the increasing threat to ethics in science and for the future’s sake of
the scientific community in a world of deteriorating values, there is a growing need for an
authority that would act similarly to the High Court in de Hague. Yet, rather than dealing with
political conflicts between nations, the proposed High Court of Ethics in Science would deal
with international scientific disputes, ethical misconducts and complains against individuals,
institutions, editors, and publishers. Although the establishment of such court and its basic
principles and responsibilities are still a matter for discussion, distinguished scientific leaders,
international lawyers as well as eminent persona of the Arts and Humanities would most likely
constitute its skeleton. The proposed high court may also be set up ad hoc at various locations,
and the voting and nomination procedures would better involve as large portion as possible of
the scientific community.
Overall, it is here suggested that a Scientific Court system be established in each country to
solve ethical issues at the national level, in parallel to an International High Court for Ethics in
Science that would deal with international conflicts and misconducts. The proposed
international court might also satisfy other needs currently under dispute, like the dispute
about global climax changes and the extent of human involvement in its rise
(http://www.theguardian.com/ environment/2015/sep/18/world-court-should-rule-on-
Page 3 of 3
291
Gurevitz, M. (2023). An International High Court for Scientific Debates is Now Required. European Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol - 11(2). 289-291.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/aivp.112.14055
climate-science-quash-sceptics-philippe-sands), or, the unsolved question of whether the
widely use of vaccinations endanger toddlers (www.mayoclinic.org/healthy- lifestyle/infant.../vaccines/art-20048334). These issues cannot be easily answered or
corrected before the scientific community comes to conclusion with the assistance of the
proposed High Court for Ethics in Science.
Reference
Gurevitz, M. (2021) “Futile publications” - inevitable reality or a challenge. Eur. J. Appl. Sci., 9(6), 296-297.
DOI:10.14738/aivp.96.11188