France will require Ph.D’s to take a research ethics oath
Most see it as a symbolic gesture, but some hope it could help bring real change
Whether they’re studying bioinformatics, history, or astrophysics, Ph.D. recipients in France will soon have to take an integrity oath on the day they successfully defend their thesis, in what seems to be the first national initiative of its kind.
Few scientists, in France or elsewhere, believe the oath alone is likely to prevent misconduct. Nonetheless, some see it as a symbolic step in the right direction that might inspire change elsewhere.
“We had a long way to go” compared with some other countries, says Stéphanie Ruphy, director of the French Office for Research Integrity (OFIS), which helped draft the oath.
France’s efforts to actively promote honest, trustworthy research have sped up in recent years: introducing a national charter in 2015 laying out researchers’ responsibilities, setting up OFIS in 2017, and writing procedures related to research integrity into law in 2020. Recently enacted rules, for instance, enable universities to ask for OFIS’s help naming an external panel to examine alleged misconduct cases.
The new oath is expected to become mandatory for researchers in all fields beginning their Ph.D.s or renewing their Ph.D. enrollment, starting in the fall. A draft of the oath, which had not been finalized or released as Science went to press, reads in part:
“I pledge, to the greatest of my ability, to continue to maintain integrity in my relationship to knowledge, to my methods and to my results.”
It will be mentioned in the charter signed by every Ph.D. candidate—as well as by their supervisor and institution—at the start of their doctorate, and will be taken when the Ph.D. is conferred
It won’t mark entry in a specific professional body, as the Hippocratic oath does for medical doctors, nor will it be legally binding.
But researchers could invoke it to bolster their opposition to dubious behavior, Ruphy says. It will also add solemnity to graduation events that, in France, often take place in nondescript rooms, without gowns or fanfare.
“It’s a symbolic measure to affirm common values and what makes a good researcher,” says Sylvie Pommier, president of France Ph.D., a national network of doctoral schools. Yet Pommier, who took part in the consultation about implementing the oath, and others think it should come earlier in the Ph.D. training process to instill integrity principles from the beginning of a research career.
Hugh Desmond, a philosopher of science and ethics at the University of Antwerp in Belgium, sees the oath as a good way to “strengthen a sense of professionalism among researchers, help coordinate norms, and make them public.”
It could “empower researchers that are lower in the hierarchy, and liberate more senior researchers,” who may feel trapped by vicious career incentives and demands for quantity over quality, he adds.
Boudewijn de Bruin, an ethics professor at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands who studies oaths in professions such as accounting, is less optimistic. “I’m not against oaths in general,” but their content should be detailed and specific enough to provide actual support for ethical decisions, he says.
The French text, however, is brief and generic; this kind of oath will achieve “nothing,” he says.
Josefin Sundin, an ecologist at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences who reported a case of misconduct in microplastics research, says she supports the oath but is also skeptical. “The only way to improve research integrity is to promote and reward research rigor, transparency, and reproducibility over impact factor and number of publications,” she says.
The oath alone won’t fix these deeper problems, agrees Sundin’s collaborator Dominique Roche, an ecologist and metascientist at the University of Neuchâtel in Switzerland.
But it is a “positive development,” he continues. “I hope other countries will follow France’s lead.”
See more here: science.org
Header image: Pinterest
Editor’s note: This could be used to make sure students adhere to the ‘official’ line on many subjects, and discourage them from being skeptical of many things.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Wisenox
| #
“It won’t mark entry in a specific professional body, as the Hippocratic oath does for medical doctors, nor will it be legally binding.”
Its pretty obvious that the hippocratic oath is meaningless and far from legally binding. More harm than 30 years of vaccines combined, but the hypocrites and their “oath” are still pushing it today.
The police state doesn’t happen without them!!!
Reply
Alan
| #
The French government should start by looking at the nonsense they accept from existing research, especially about the climate and vaccines.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
Title of this article is meaningless as Wisenox wrote. It all depends upon who is defining the ethics or ignoring ethics. As Wisenox concluded: “The police state doesn’t happen without them!!!” And previously Saeed concluded recently that the problem was scientists and not ANY NONSCIENTISTS.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
I do not think it is a matter of taking the oath or not. As I described in my recent articles, and Jerry noted, unfortunately, the issue is wrongly labeling physicians as scientists, who often take the oath. (https://bioanalyticx.com/has-mr-bill-gates-been-fooled/).
I am unclear on what basis physicians are considered or promoted as scientists? From their curriculum and academic training, they never study or practice science (https://bioanalyticx.com/practice-of-medicine-the-fatal-mindset/). However, they claim to be scientists and practice science, which has caused harm by suggesting false test methods, false claims of isolation of the non-existing virus and related illness, developing treatments (vaccines) without testing in patients, etc. These are not scientific practices but are being imposed on the public/patients against their will. Is it not against the oath?
Please comment on why physicians are considered scientists. Perhaps I am missing something and may require a change of my thinking. Greatly appreciate it. Thanks.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Saeed,
You wrote: “Please comment on why physicians are considered scientists.”
In a 1963 lecture titled ‘The Uncertainty of Science’ (THE MEANING OF IT ALL, 1998) Richard Feynman, a physicist, began in answer to the question, “What is science?”, “Science means, sometimes, a special of finding things out. Sometimes it means the body of knowledge arising from the things found out. It may also mean the new things you can do when you have found something out, or the actual doing of things. This last field is usually called technology. … And so the popular definition of science is partly technology, too.”
In referring to technology I believe Feynman, the physical scientist, was thinking of engineers and the inventors of physical things. I believe there are “heath sciences” and the physicians of various specialties are the counterpart of engineers. As far as I know undergraduate students planning to become engineers and physicians are both expected to take introductory courses in physics and chemistry. The engineers are expected take introductory mathematical courses and physicians are expected to take biology and zoology courses of the life sciences.
Of course, these courses and what they do as engineers and physicians does not necessarily make them SCIENTISTS anymore than a CPA is an economist.
Here I will ramble as it has been noted that I am prone to do. I read about the history of people about whom there seems general agreement that this people have done something notable. Edison, the Wright Brothers are two names which come to mind. The well known scientist Albert Einstein comes to mind. When he was awarded his PhD his professors could not (or did not try to) find him an academic position. So he found employment as a patent clerk and as a patent clerk who did not have ‘academic duties’ and read about the experimental results others were observing and began to write his SCIENTIFIC papers which revolutionized the physicists of his and did simply thought observation which with some assumptions lead to the famous equation: E = m c^2.
According to Feynman SCIENCE IS UNCERTAIN and I totally agree with him. But is also agree with Galileo, Feynman, Einstein, and other notable Scientists that certain reproducible observations have proved long accepted scientific ideas to be absolutely wrong. Like the one that the Earth Stands Still, which almost caused Galileo to die before his time.
I could ramble on but beyond what is not I am uncertain. Have a good day, Jerry.
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Jerry, I agree with your description of the situation. However, I would conclude differently.
For example, you wrote, “The engineers are expected take introductory mathematical courses and physicians are expected to take biology and zoology courses of the life sciences.” True, in addition, engineering students used to take another course, “technical drawing.” I was one of those “engineering students.” However, fate has something else for me, i.e., chemistry (pure and simple science subject), and ever since, I have been involved with the subject/science, give and take, for 50+ years, as a bench researcher.
It means that engineering, as do medicines and pharmacy, are technical subjects, not science subjects. However, there is no doubt some scientists may become technical or vice versa, with different thinking approaches and tools (research). The whole profession of technicals cannot be considered or become scientists. This leads me to your following comment.
“Of course, these courses and what they do as engineers and physicians does not necessarily make them SCIENTISTS anymore than a CPA is an economist.” So true! Note that these (engineering and medicine) subjects were taught in colleges (technical), not universities (science and research).
So, during the past three decades or so, these technicals moved to universities and became “scientists and researchers.” However, their training and practice remain technical, but claims become science and scientists. Therefore, claims have to be false. The most visible and disastrous example of such false claims is the virus and its pandemic.
They will invariability provide false science or answers such as viruses or variants have been isolated (false), PCR/antigen tests are relevant or valid (false), and vaccines are “working” (false), and so on.
In short, as I noted in my article, “It (the practice of medicine) will return to the one it has been designed for, i.e., evaluating patients and then matching them with appropriate treatments. Furthermore, this profession would not be permitted to do research and development in disease creation, identification, and treatment development” (https://bioanalyticx.com/has-mr-bill-gates-been-fooled/).
This is how, I believe, the practice of medicine became “science,” but it needs to go back to its original or true state – technical with a 3 to a 4-year college degree. I realize it would not be easy or quick, but, unfortunately, it must be done.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Saeed,
About 3-4 decades ago professors and instructors of introductory chemistry observed that their students could not perform at the high level they once did. And these professors and instructors knew that how they were teaching had not changed. So these chemistry professors and instructors, recognizing this problem, began to ponder how they could reverse this downward trend and began to experiment with ‘new’ instructional methods.
One of these professors was a Noble Prize Winner in Chemistry who taught introductory chemistry at Harvard. And he discovered there was a segment of society at that time who didn’t believe in PROGRESS but wanted to return to the NATURAL WORLD of our ancestors. This was written about in ‘Chemistry and Engineering News’. At this time I had been a one person chemistry department at a small state community college in northern Minnesota for about 20 years.
Suddenly I remember a very critical historical fact of the 1970’s. Our CC president invited a professor (whose name I do not remember) from the University of Texas-Austin, whose speciality was community college education, to speak to the faculties of 5 small CCs in northern MN. He had two messages. One was students at that time came to CCs to fail (not historically true about our students). The other was at that time English professors at the U of California-Berkley had discovered that nearly a third of their talented freshman students could not pass their fundamental English Composition course because their reading ability was two or more years below the 13th grade level, or higher, expected.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Saeed and PSI Readers,
I maybe should do this but I love quotes which tell it like it is. Senior Moments
I told my wife she should embrace her mistakes… so she hugged me.
My wife says I only have 2 faults. I don’t listen and something else….
I came, I saw, I forgot what I was doing. Retraced my steps, got lost on the way back. Now I have no idea what’s going on.
If you see me talking to myself, just move along. I’m self-employed; we’re having a staff meeting.
I’ve reached the age where my train of thought often leaves the station without me.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Saeed,
Am interested in which nation do you now live. And places where else you might have had experiences.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Hi Jerry:
For the past 40+ years, I have been living in Canada.
While working with Health Canada (which used to be a fine science-based institution), I have had fairly good interactions with my counterparts in the US FDA.
Before that, I lived in Belgium for four years to do my Ph.D., under the guidance of (late) Prof. M. Verzele, world known in the area of separation and isolation science (chemistry-based) using mostly counter-current distribution technique and chromatography.
I was raised and educated in Lahore (Pakistan).
Regards
Saeed
Reply
John Alexander
| #
Today an oath is meaningless. I agree with Saeed Qureshi in what he says.
Maybe it is the idea of Honorary degrees & doctorates is also a problem. There are some of the most evil people being awarded these signals of virtue,
Look at the Fake Nobel Laureates and then look at some who have ben awarded the Noble prizes are and were terrorists.
Reply