The article deals with the duties and ethical responsibilities of the four

pillars of research
o Scientists: who perform the research. They cannot be considered to
be completely neutral. Their relationship with the subject of their
research i.e. the citizens play a major role in their interpretations of
research.
o Sponsors: they provide sources and capital for research. They can
be government, corporates etc. They can also heavily influence
research:
They would alter conclusions to their benefit:
For example, government would not let anti-nationalist
findings come out, and corporates would not let any
conclusions be revealed, that curtail their business
motives.
o Gatekeepers: these are generally the watchdogs of the society. This
can be the government, the security agencies etc.
They control the dissemination of facts.
They do so under various pretexts such as national security
etc.
For example, the chinese government had a tussle with
google over curtailing the information that can be
accessed by their citizens.
o Citizens: they are both the object of a social research as well the
final recipients of the analysis. They generate the facts that they
receive.
Power Structure:
o Power structure is primarily the interplay of powers and duties of
these four sections.
o Plurality: There are different kinds of scientist, sponsors,
gatekeepers and citizens. So the nature of the interplay of power
between them keeps changing.
We must acknowledge that what we get is not just simple knowledge, but
what is shown to us after the raw facts pass all these authorities. It may
have been modified to suit the ethics of our society.
Ethical issues with research in natural and social sciences:
o Emergence of ethical concerns in natural sciences may be traced
back to the first nuclear explosion, a harsh reality that opened in
front of us the harsh and untamed potential of science.
o With natural sciences, issues of ethics arise primarily in the
application of knowledge acquired i.e. Experimentation.
o In social sciences ethical issues arise even in the inquiry stage.
For example, betrayal of the trust of those people who share
their confidentialities with the researchers.
Why do we only look at slums when we try to talk about
poverty in cities? Why do we classify poor people to be
misfortunate from the beginning?
o He also furthers his argument by saying that social sciences pose a
danger by their potential to improve the old forms tyranny and

oppression in the course of their inquiry. Moreover since Social

sciences study the relations between humans, these dangers are
inherent at all stages of research and not just the application of fact,
unlike natural sciences.
o Another major point of difference between natural and social
sciences is that the four part model cannot be applied to natural
sciences as there are no citizens in the process, with whom the
natural scientist may negotiate. For instance, there is no society for
prevention of cruelty to atoms (its Barnes own example, so dont
think Im being cheap).
o He also tries to understand this sudden clamour of sciences about
ethics. He makes an observation that till a few years previous, there
was no mention of ethics in our science handbooks, but now there
are lengthy chapters on the same. This hue and cry about ethics,
Barnes says, seems to stem from a guilt of scientist for having
neglected them for so long and now they seem to be trying to make
up for it.
o But Barnes says that Social sciences are young and would find
solutions to their quandaries in future.
o This tussle is not just restricted to scientists but even sponsors,
some of whom have even made their own codes of ethics and
conditions, that are laid down before the researchers before any
assistance is provided.
o Barnes is sceptical of this sudden surge in ethics. He feels that
increased awareness in this field is highly nonsensical. He cites an
example of how we are rapidly moving on from basic ethics to
Advances Ethics and very soon we would have specialized fields
within the ambit of General Ethics.
o He says that Growth of ethics in Social science springs from a shift
in the attitude of the scientists. There has been a move away from
positivism to an interpretive view of knowledge, leading to the
treatment of knowledge not as a source of enlightenment to being a
means of gaining power and subsequent evaluations.
o He also emphasizes that although social sciences do possess a
dangerous potential to destroy privacy of the individual, providing
the oppressor with a new tool or preparing the ground for an
oppressive regime, it would be even more injurious to the society if
the social scientists were to stop making inquiries.
o He also points that the threats entailed by sociology are minor, and
by risking these threats the society is actually preserving itself in
the longer run.
He also brings to light the fact that initially sociology was treated
empirically and the element of positivism was really strong. This led to a
view that knowledge was meant for only the elite. However, with the
decline in positivism, the citizens have come much more closer to the
scientists socially and philosophically. This has led the scientists and
sponsors to believe that knowledge would bring power to them, while the

gatekeepers and citizens perceive knowledge as a private property that

has a restricted market.
Previously, one could treat social sciences in the same ways as natural
sciences without having to worry about ethics but now, due to a change in
the balance of power between the four sections, one has to negotiate
between the four parties rather than following an arbitrarily set procedure.
Finally, he insists that plurality in these four sections is an essentiality for
this interplay to be fruitful and for the Social sciences to exist.