How do cancer research scientists deal with machines and consumables? Exploring research ethics from an inductive ethnographic perspective

This research uses ethnographic methods to investigate the ethical implications of scientific knowledge construction within a cancer research lab. It builds upon previous work in science and technology studies (STS), particularly actor-network theory (ANT), which emphasizes the social and cultural factors shaping scientific knowledge production. The study focuses on the ethical challenges related to the use of machines and consumables in the lab, arguing for more responsible and reflective scientific practices. The researchers address ethical principles such as research integrity, responsible conduct of research, and the responsible use of resources and technologies, all of which are fundamentally underpinned by trust. The study's main objective is to highlight the ethical implications of scientists' reliance on machines and consumables, examining how this impacts the three fundamental ethical principles mentioned above.

The paper reviews existing literature on research ethics, highlighting the importance of trust in scientific research as a rational choice based on assessing the credibility and reliability of researchers, institutions, machines, and processes. It discusses the principles of research integrity, responsible conduct, and responsible use of resources and technologies as outlined in various declarations and codes of conduct. The authors note the challenges of integrating ethics into laboratory practices and the need for more mindful approaches to research improvement and integrity. Existing literature also emphasizes the importance of science communication in building public trust in research outcomes. The authors examine previous ethnographic studies in experimental science labs, emphasizing the importance of understanding scientific knowledge construction as a social process rather than a solely objective pursuit. This builds on perspectives like Actor-Network Theory (ANT), which highlights the interplay between scientists, instruments, materials, and institutions in shaping knowledge.

The study employed an ethnographic research design, involving 18 months of participant observation, individual and collective interviews, and field notes within a high-performing cancer research lab in Belgium. The lab consisted of ten researchers, technicians, and a principal investigator. The interviews focused on researchers' use of machines and consumables, aiming to uncover their practices and rationales. The data analysis employed a qualitative and inductive approach, focusing on ethical principles relevant to the laboratory environment: research integrity, responsible conduct, and responsible resource and technology use. Semi-structured interviews were conducted individually and collectively, with questions focusing on result verification, trust in machines and external providers, the proportion of externally sourced materials, and a visual representation of the research process. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed using qualitative methods.

The researchers consistently expressed trust in both their lab machines and the consumables obtained from external providers. However, this trust often lacked a rational basis. While some researchers demonstrated a basic understanding of machine function, many admitted to a lack of knowledge or minimized the need to investigate machine validity. Their trust stemmed from factors such as the machines' reputation, the assumption of proper design and function, reliance on the experience of colleagues, or the belief that manufacturers and service providers address any potential issues. Regarding consumables, the researchers acknowledged the risk associated with relying on external suppliers but lacked the means or inclination to verify the accuracy of the supplied products. The researchers almost universally relied on external providers for nearly all consumables, demonstrating a lack of control over critical experimental parameters. The collective interview revealed a greater awareness of the potential risks associated with this dependence, highlighting the ethical implications of relying on untested assumptions. Researchers acknowledged the possibility of inaccurate measurements or altered product composition, which could skew research findings.

The findings highlight a significant ethical gap in current scientific practices, particularly within cancer research. The uncritical trust placed in machines and consumables threatens research integrity, responsible conduct, and responsible resource utilization. The researchers' reliance on subjective judgments rather than rigorous validation processes demonstrates a need for enhanced critical awareness and a more comprehensive understanding of the potential risks and uncertainties involved. The study emphasizes the importance of researchers actively participating in validating both machines and consumables to maintain research quality and integrity. This is particularly important considering the potential for widespread inaccuracies if reliance on untested assumptions is widespread across laboratories globally. The results challenge the status quo, highlighting a need for reflection and potential reforms within the broader scientific community.

This ethnographic study reveals a significant reliance on untested assumptions regarding the validity of machines and consumables in cancer research. The researchers' trust, while seemingly well-intentioned, creates a substantial risk to research integrity. The study underscores the need for increased critical awareness, rigorous validation processes, and greater transparency in the supply chains of research materials. Future research should investigate interventions to promote more responsible and ethical practices within laboratory settings. It is crucial that the research community examines its practices to address the identified ethical concerns and ensure the reliability and validity of scientific findings.

The study's primary limitation lies in its small sample size, which limits the generalizability of the findings to other cancer research labs. The study focuses on a single lab and may not represent the practices of all research labs globally. Further research with larger and more diverse samples is necessary to confirm these findings and understand the extent of this issue across different research contexts.