Microsoft Word - 7407-17667-1-ED_Abbott.doc ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, 60, Fast Track 7, 2017; doi: 10.4401/ag-7407 1 Some Fundamental Issues in Geoethics DAVID M. ABBOTT, JR.* AIPG Ethics Committee Chairman, Denver, Colorado, USA dmageol@msn.com Abstract Ethics and morals concern themselves with distinguishing right from wrong, with actions, and with the volition in- volved. Dictionaries define “ethics” in terms of “morals” and “morals” in terms of “ethics,” so the terms are quite simi- lar and circular. I define “morals” as informal statements and “ethics” as written statements adopted by some group. General morals apply to everyone while professional ethics generally apply only to members of a particular profession. Moral and ethical analysis requires careful and consistent discrimination of the relevant facts. It is important to remem- ber that moral/ethical analysis does not resolve all questions because different people rank moral/ethical values different- ly. We must respectfully agree to disagree. Moral/ethical rules apply to all persons at all times. However, exceptions are allowed following careful analysis of the exception. For example, surgeons are allowed to cut people open, most of us are not allowed to do so. Moral/ethical aspirations are statements encouraging a particular activity but no demerits follow from choosing to follow one aspiration and not another. Continuing professional development (CPD) provides an exam- ple. Geoscience ethics codes all recommend CPD, which is aspirational. For those societies that require some minimum amount of CPD, an aspiration has become a rule. Honesty is the principal geoscience ethical rule. Some geoscience socie- ties have disciplinary procedures, most do not; nor should they. Disciplinary procedures must allow for due process and appropriate confidentiality until resolved. 1. BASICS OF MORALITY AND ETHICS ecause dictionary definitions of “mor- als” and “ethics” tend to define one term using the other, a circular argu- ment, I define morals as informal statements about what people are expected to do and eth- ics as written statements prepared by some group like a geoscience society that describe the conduct expectations for members of the issuing group. Discussions of geoscience ethics or geoethics should be grounded in general morality. Bernard Gert (2004) provided the best summary for the general reader of general mo- rality. Rather than formulating a new ethical statement or system, Gert examined the infor- mal moral principles on which all societies we know about agree. Gert points out that that there are two kinds of moral statements: moral rules and moral aspirations or ideals. Moral rules must be obeyed by all people with respect to all other people all the time. Gert identifies ten fundamental moral rules that everyone recognizes regardless of whether they had been formally articulated or written down within their group, culture, or society. They are: 1. Do not kill. 2. Do not cause pain or injury. 3. Do not disable. 4. Do not deprive of freedom. 5. Do not deprive of pleasure/the pur- suit of happiness. 6. Do not deceive. 7. Keep your promis- es. 8. Do not cheat or vi- olate rules of con- duct. 9. Obey the law - in- cludes theft. 10. Do your duty. Do not deceive is emphasized because I believe that honesty is the basic moral principle under- lying all geoscience ethics codes (Abbott, 2004). I also added “the pursuit of happiness” to Gert’s “Do not deprive of pleasure” rule be- cause I feel that pursuit of happiness better captures the concept of Gert’s rule. Moral aspirations or ideals are admirable activ- ities that some people engage in some of the time but which are not obligatory on everyone all the time. For example, none of us individu- ally can relieve hunger worldwide even if we B ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, 60, Fast Track 7, 2017; doi: 10.4401/ag-7407 2 choose to work towards that goal. Actions re- flecting moral aspirations or ideals include such things as contributing to the cure of some disease, working to ease hunger. Within a geo- science setting, actions reflecting moral aspira- tions or ideals may include volunteering for a professional association, writing papers, giving presentations at professional meetings, and en- gaging in public outreach about matters that are within our areas of expertise such as natu- ral hazards or the responsible development of natural resources. While promoting a moral aspiration warrants recognition, demerits are not given if one does not work towards one or more moral aspirations. Continuing professional development (CPD) provides an example of geoscience activities that are sometimes aspirational and sometimes rules. Geoscience codes of ethics or conduct usually contain a statement encouraging con- tinuing education; an aspirational statement. However, increasing numbers of geoscience organizations are requiring at least some mem- bers to engage in a specified minimum amount of CPD. For these organizations, CPD has be- come an ethical rule for the specified member- ship classes. Gert (2004) also recognizes that there are excep- tions to the moral rules. For example, self- defense is a generally recognized exception to the “Do not kill” rule. Similarly, surgeons are allowed to cut into a patient’s abdomen as part of a surgical procedure in violation of the “Do not cause pain or injury” rule. Gert provides a checklist for identifying a morally justified vio- lation of a moral rule: • What moral rule is involved? • Who is harmed? • What harm is avoided by the violation? • Can everyone violate the rule in the same way? • Is some sort of emergency involved? • Was the violation intentional? • Was coercion involved? • Are you willing to publicly acknowledge and accept the consequences of the viola- tion? (Integrity). “Integrity” was parenthetically added to Gert’s checklist because publicly acknowledging and accepting the consequences of a violation of a moral rule (or a law) is where integrity enters the discussion. Stephen L. Carter (1996) notes that “Integrity is like the weather: everybody talks about it but nobody knows what to do about it. ...[I]ntegrity is like good weather, be- cause everybody is in favor of it.” Carter de- fines integrity as requiring three steps: (1) discerning what is right and what is wrong; (2) acting on what you have discerned, even at personal cost; and (3) saying openly that you are acting on your understanding of right from wrong. The first criterion captures the idea of integrity as requiring a degree of moral reflectiveness. The second brings in the idea of an integral person as steadfast, which includes the sense of keeping commitments. The third reminds us that a person of integrity is unashamed of do- ing right. The word [integrity] conveys not so much a single-mindedness as a completeness; not the frenzy of a fanatic who wants to remake all the world in a single mold, but the serenity of a person who is confident in the knowledge that he or she is living rightly. Honesty is a basic geoscience ethical principle (Abbott, 2002 and 2004). Demonstrating the re- liability of sampling results through the use of Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) procedures has become required practice in the mining industry in recent years and should be applied to any sampling program (Abbott, 2007 & 2016a). Such QA/QC procedures appear to violate the honesty principle by concealing the identity of the standard, duplicate, and blank QA/QC samples in a sample stream from those further down the sample preparation and anal- ysis procedures performance line. But is this apparent violation unethical, or is it actually necessary to assure the validity of scientific re- sults? Using Gert’s rules for identifying a mor- ally justified exception to a rule for QA/QC samples results in: • Rule being violated: do not deceive. • Harm done: increased analytical costs. • Harm avoided: determining and verifying the reliability of your sampling and analyti- cal processes. ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, 60, Fast Track 7, 2017; doi: 10.4401/ag-7407 3 • Everyone can and should be using QA/QC procedures in data collection. • Although the identity of the standards, blanks, and duplicates should be hidden, their existence need not be. Gert (2004) makes another very important point about moral or ethical analysis: such analysis will not answer all moral/ethical ques- tions. Different people rank moral or ethical principles differently in their analysis of a par- ticular situation and thus can arrive at oppos- ing moral/ethical conclusions each have a val- id moral/ethical justification. Common exam- ples include abortion and capital punishment. Most geoscience ethics codes require geoscien- tists to maintain the confidentiality of their employer’s or client’s confidential information. However, most geoscience ethics codes also state that protection of the public’s health, safe- ty, and welfare (including financial welfare) is the highest duty or responsibility of members. By stating that this obligation is “the highest duty or responsibility,” these codes place the public’s health, safety, and welfare above em- ployer or client confidentiality. Geoscientists should bring confidential evidence of fraud, environmental degradation, or a geohazard situation to the attention of appropriate author- ities (When one is faced with a conflict between confidentiality and disclosing a potential public harm, one should proceed very carefully and seek the advice of knowledgeable, independent parties for advice). The EFG’s (European Federation of Geologists) Code of Ethics (2016) states this principle: … 8. The geologist must avoid any sort of negligence in the practice of his/her profession, especially when this gives rise to risks or of material or moral damage for his/her client or for the envi- ronment. 9. The geologist must not alter, or deny the exist- ence of, facts or accepted technical or scientific truths which could thereby favour a client or mislead the public. 10. The geologist must not promise or broadcast specific professional advice that cannot be sup- ported by a genuine, objective possibility, … 10.2 If, after having given his/her advice, a ge- ologist becomes aware that it will not be entirely followed, he/she should, regardless of his/her own position, inform the rele- vant person of the foreseen risks. … 2. TO WHOM DO ETHICS CODES APPLY? Gert (2004) also points out that it is important to determine who or what is covered by a mor- al or ethical statement. Geoscience ethics codes apply specifically to covered member catego- ries of the issuing geoscience society. Other codes, such as the 2015 American Geoscience Institute Guidelines for Ethical Professional Conduct (2015 AGI Guidelines) assert a broad- er reach. The 2015 AGI Guidelines begin, “The- se guidelines address common ethical topics across the geoscience community; the ethics statements of individual societies may expand beyond these guidelines” clearly extending the application of the Guidelines to everyone in the geoscience community regardless of their membership in an AGI member society. The Ethical Guidelines for Statistical Practice issued by the American Statistical Association (2016) go even further by explicitly stating, “Because society depends on informed judgments sup- ported by statistical methods, all practitioners of statistics, regardless of training and occupa- tion or job title, have an obligation to work in a professional, competent, and ethical manner and to discourage any type of professional and scientific misconduct.” At least according to the American Statistical Association, their Ethical Guidelines for Statistical Practice apply to all geoscientists using statistical analysis. This brings up the important point: who de- cides whether a particular topic, group, loca- tion, or cause is covered by moral or ethical principles? I addressed this issue in comment- ing on a 2015 paper by M. Brocx and V. Se- meniuk, “The development of solar salt ponds along the Pilbara Coast, Western Australia - a coastline of global heritage significance used for industrial purposes”. The first sentence of their abstract summarizes their view, “The Pilbara Coast in NW Australia stands unique as the most geologically/geomorphically diverse arid coast globally and, as such, it is a coastline of Global Sig- nificance.” I was previously unaware of specif- ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, 60, Fast Track 7, 2017; doi: 10.4401/ag-7407 4 ics of the Pilbara Coast and am unable to de- termine whether the Pilbara Coast deserves the protection Brocx and Semeniuk wish it had. But I strongly suspect that others disagree with Brocx’s and Semeniuk’s views and with equal- ly good ethical reasons. It is a result of how dif- ferent people rank different “good” outcomes (Abbott, 2016b). 3. MORAL AND ETHICAL ANALYSIS Analysis of an ethical situation requires careful analysis employing the following: • Identifying the ethical principle(s) involved. • Discriminating between relevant and irrele- vant facts. • Being logical. • Being objective. • Being consistent - all similar cases must be treated the same way. Discussion of and reflection on ethical case his- tories demonstrate that small differences in the relevant facts can lead to quite different conclu- sions. Consider the following examples: Example 1: A geoscientist has prepared a struc- ture contour map that is part of a project for a client. The geoscientist’s project manager, who is also a geoscientist, reviews the map and con- cludes that the contours should be changed in a way that has the effect of making the project look better. Does the difference between the original and revised version of the structure contour map reflect (a) an effort to please the client or (b) a legitimate difference of profes- sional opinion? What considerations would go into favoring alternative a or b? Example 2: A university professor has been re- tained as a private consultant on a project lo- cated several hours by car away from the uni- versity. During the same trip, the professor also does a field check of a graduate student’s thesis area, which is located near the consulting pro- ject. The professor is permitted to drive a uni- versity vehicle to the graduate student’s thesis area. Should the professor also drive the uni- versity vehicle to the private client’s project site? If yes, should the university be reim- bursed for half the whole trip or just for the ex- tra miles required to visit the client’s site? If the university vehicle should not be taken to the client’s project site, how should the professor get to the site? Should two separate trips be made or are there other solutions? Are there any other facts that would change your view of the situation? The American Institute of Professional Geolo- gists (2017a) has published a large number of articles and columns on professional ethics for over 20 years. 4. DOES HAVING A CODE OF ETHICS REQUIRE DISCIPLINE? Most geoscience professional societies have educational and experience requirements for membership. These qualifications were among the reasons for organizing in the first place. Membership was a credential the public could look to for assuring competent work and hon- est appraisal of natural resource offerings. Ab- bott (2018) reviews the history and application of enforceable codes of geoscience ethics. Once a professional organization has decided that it will have an enforceable code of ethics, it must determine which provisions of its code of ethics are ethical rules that cannot be violated and which are aspirational statements. Most professional societies have codes of ethics with both types of provisions, while state licensing boards and others will have codes of conduct containing only ethical rules. Adoption of an enforceable Code of Ethics re- quires that disciplinary procedures be adopted. These disciplinary procedures should describe all of the processes of: 1. Review of allegations. 2. Initiation of an investigation. 3. Filing of formal charges. 4. Adjudication process. 5. Appellate process. 6. Describe the disciplinary sanctions that can be imposed. 7. Describe the rights of respondents. 8. Avoidance of conflicts of interest within the procedures. 9. Confidentiality of the proceedings. ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, 60, Fast Track 7, 2017; doi: 10.4401/ag-7407 5 10. Reporting of violations to other organiza- tions and regulators. 11. Publication of annual summaries of disci- plinary activity. Abbott (2018) contains detailed descriptions of these 11 activities, and the American Institute of Professional Geologists’ (AIPG) Disciplinary Procedures (2015) provide an excellent exam- ple of such procedures. AIPG publishes an an- nually updated summary of its disciplinary ac- tivities (AIPG, 2017b) The Grievance and Dis- ciplinary Procedures of the European Federa- tion of Geologists (EFG) are contained in Regu- lation C2-Ver 5 (2010). REFERENCES Abbott D.M. Jr. (2004). Are scientific honesty and “best practices” in conflict?: European Geologist, No. 18, December 2004, p. 34-38; reprinted in The Professional Geologist, Ju- ly-August 2005, p. 46-51. Abbott D.M. Jr. (2007). Assuring the reliability of your sampling results: The Professional Geologist, November/December 2007, p. 33-38. Abbott D.M. Jr. (2016a). USGS inorganic geo- chemical lab manipulated data and proving your data are accurate: The Professional Geologist, Professional Ethics & Practices column 160, p. 31-32. Abbott D.M. Jr. (2016b). Geoethics: The Profes- sional Geologist, Professional Ethics & Prac- tices column 157, p. 32-33. Abbott D.M. Jr. (2018), Brief history and appli- cation of enforceable professional geosci- ence ethics codes. In: Gunderson L.C., ed., Scientific integrity and ethics with applica- tions to the geosciences: Special Publication American Geophysical Union, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., pp. (in press). AIPG - American Institute of Professional Ge- ologists (2015). Disciplinary Procedures: www.aipg.org/disciplinaryprocedures, ac- cessed March 2017. AIPG - American Institute of Professional Ge- ologists (2017a). Professional ethics and practices topical index: www.aipg.org/codeofethics, accessed March 2017. AIPG - American Institute of Professional Ge- ologists (2017b). AIPG Disciplinary Proce- dure Actions 1989 through 2016: www.aipg.org/disciplinaryactions, ac- cessed March 2017. AGI - American Geoscience Institute (2015). Guide- lines for Ethical Professional Conduct: www.americangeosciences.org/community /agi-guidelines-ethical-professional- conduct, accessed September 2017. ASA - American Statistical Association (2016). Ethical guidelines for statistical practice: www.amstat.org/ASA/Your- Career/Ethical-Guidelines-for-Statistical- Practice.aspx, accessed September 2017. Brocx M. and Semeniuk V. (2015). The devel- opment of solar salt ponds along the Pilbara Coast, Western Australia - a coastline of global heritage significance used for indus- trial purposes. In: Peppoloni S. and Di Cap- ua G., eds., Geoethics: the role and respon- sibility of geoscientists, Geological Society of London, Special Publication 419, p. 31-41. Carter S.L. (1996). Integrity: Harper Perennial, 288 p. EFG - European Federation of Geologists (2010). Grievance and disciplinary proce- dures, Regulation C2-Ver 5: http://eurogeologists.eu/statutesregulatio ns/C2, accessed March 2017. EFG - European Federation of Geologists (2016). Code of Ethics, Regulation C1, Ver. 6: http://eurogeologists.eu/wp- content/uploads/2017/07/Reg-C1-Ver-6- Nov-2016.pdf, accessed September 2017. Gert B. (2004). Common morality - deciding what to do: Oxford University Press, 179 p. * AIPG-CPG, FGSL, EurGeol, FAusIMM