A Pledge for Scientists
A Pledge for Scientists
Tags: research, musings
Published on Wednesday, August 5, 2026
" Previous post: 40 Bits of Advice That, in Murky Light, …
In the wake of yet another major conference getting swamped by too many<br>submissions, and many participants using AI in irresponsible ways,1<br>I would like to suggest a simple social fix:2 Like the Order of the Engineer,<br>our field should also have a pledge, serving as some form of<br>commitment device. My (arguably naïve) idea is that such a pledge will<br>help us maintain consistency and remind us about our values, as well as<br>our intentions.
Shaped by discussions with many of my collaborators, in particular<br>Richard (who suggested such a pledge<br>in the first place) and<br>Mathieu (who suggested adding sections on<br>responsibility and disagreement), here is a first version of such<br>a pledge. I hope it will serve as a building block and potential source<br>of inspiration.
In my work as a scientist, I will strive to never forget that what I do<br>has consequences in the world. I make these commitments freely and will<br>hold myself accountable to them.
On honesty. I will report what I find, not what I wish I would<br>find. I will be honest about my findings, my methods, their limitations,<br>and how they relate to the works of others, refusing to inflate or<br>exaggerate. Whenever possible, I will share my code and data. I will<br>describe my findings as transparently as possible, making it possible<br>for others to build on them, reproduce them, or even challenge them.
On responsibility. I will own any errors or mistakes in my work,<br>even the ones introduced by my tools. I will not let fear or false pride<br>prevent me from revising false conclusions since I recognize that<br>corrections are a natural part of the scientific method.
On disagreement. I will engage seriously and respectfully with<br>critics and criticism. I will likewise criticize ideas without<br>criticizing the people who express them, and I will remain open to<br>being persuaded.
On tools. I will learn how to use my tools in the most effective and<br>efficient manner possible so that they do not use me. In particular,<br>I will treat AI systems as useful tools, which nevertheless require my<br>judgment. I will verify what they produce and will not let them speak<br>for me, even though it would be expedient to do so. As for the tools<br>I create, I will think about those who might be harmed or helped by<br>them. I will refuse to build something that I believe would do more harm<br>than good.
On credit. I will acknowledge those who served as inspiration or<br>precursors to my work, just as I will acknowledge those who undertake<br>my work with me. I will never knowingly claim that as mine which was<br>originally created by others, be they human or machine.
On community. I will remember that I am a member of a community that<br>extends well beyond my daily work. I will make sure that the trust in<br>science and the scientific method remains warranted.
This I pledge, in the full knowledge that I am fallible. I know I may<br>sometimes fall short of these ideals, but I commit to acknowledge it and<br>try again whenever I do.
Including, but not limited to: (i) Providing a framing that is too<br>broad, (ii) providing responses in a rebuttal that do not answer<br>a question but instead wax lyrical about unrelated points, and (iii)<br>“spamming” reviewers (or authors) with long comments that have not<br>been read by a human. ↩︎
Even though the efficacy of such a fix is very much debatable but<br>having something is probably better than nothing in this<br>particular instance. ↩︎