Dr. David B. Resnik (bioethicist and vice-chair of the Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects Research at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health) discusses the problems of conflicts of interest in scientific research in his new book “The Price of Truth, How Money Affects the Norms of Science.” http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/philosophy/9780195309782/acprof-9780195309782-chapter-9.html; see also http://www6.miami.edu/ethics/jpsl/archives/all/COILegalProceedings.html . Understanding “critical questions” (assumption or conditions) and the argument visualization syntax of these special premises is helpful to effectively consider such conflicts of interest in scientific research.

In presenting his case, Dr. Resnik first sets out the ethical principles of scientific research:

  • Honesty
  • Carefulness
  • Objectivity
  • Openness
  • Freedom
  • Credit
  • Respect for intellectual property
  • Respect for colleagues and students
  • Respect for research subjects
  • Competence
  • Confidentiality
  • Legality
  • Social Responsibility
  • Stewardship of resources (p. 45).

These ethical areas can be at risk, according to Dr. Resnik, when there are “temptations of money, power, success, and prestige, as well as financial, institutional, social or political pressures” that can compromise judgment. (p. 110)

This is why an assessment of the probative force of scientific research (or other studies) must consider these “critical questions” that can be represented as assumptions or conditions. For example, consider the following ADEPT™ Inference Path argument map drawn from Dr. Resnik’s work:

This map illustrates the importance of being always aware of the presence or absence of this type of assumption based on the relevant critical questions. This awareness is enhanced with the ADEPT™ Inference Path visual syntax because the absence of such assumptions is always apparent due to the different syntax for inferential premises and their supporting assumptions that are visually depicted underneath.

To the contrary, this distinction is not reflected in the typical (i.e, pyramid rather than path) visual language syntax used for Rationale™ argument mapping software. Both types of premises are lumped together in the row of blocks. Thus, the pyramid syntax does not cue the designer or reader that essential elements of the argument may not be represented.

For example, the Austhink report “WHY TANKS? WHY ABRAMS?, The application of argument mapping to a contentious public policy debate“, relies heavily on three published reports, namely the 2000 White Paper, the 2006 Adaptive Campaigning, and the Future Land Operations Concept. Yet, none of the critical questions of possible conflicts of interest related to these publications are depicted in the argument maps or examined in the report.

While I am sure that there is a sound explanation for their absence, the problem created by the pyramid visual syntax is that the reader of the report is not aware that the essential assumptions of a lack of conflicts of interest are missing from the analysis. A reader cannot fully assess the probative force of an argument without considering all the essential components of that argument.