Creativity in Natural Science Requires Ethical Balance Between Trust and Risk

Progress in Science and Technology is based on creativity, free and excellent education. We discuss factors which maintain creativity, namely keeping the balance between two social dilemmas. While grown overcapacities but also necessary resources in many research and higher education institutions were destroyed in the last two decades, now the calls for humanity and ethical principles are gaining popularity, such as work-life-balance, clear long-term perspectives for researchers, and society-driven ethical research development.

In this study we analyzed the career of Nobel laureates and other physics scientists in three stages, their early career, their period of success and the period after the laureate. The result is that the self-concept of some famous scientists differs essentially from that of a Homo economicus and some were mistreated by their scientific community.

As a result, ethical human resource management should maintain good conditions for creativity as expressed in these ten guidelines. 1) Maintaining diversity without overestimation of communication skills. 2) “Do the best for your student.” 3) “A career is not a toy”; hidden research managers should avoid bending the psycho-landscape of applicants. 4) Secret top-down management should avoid unfairness in peer review, citations, providing positions. 5) Hunger-out strategy is unfair. 6) Overloaded work pressure kills creativity. 7) Disruptive progress in technology cannot be foreseen [1]. 8) Trust means over-estimation of tradition, maintains present structures, while risk means opportunity for new challenges. 9) Accepting plan-B yields to academic suicide. 10) The worst case scenario is no trust, no risk, no willingness, which means exclusions of the community.

Fast changing circumstances requires ethical control of progress in science, and should provide best environment for creativity. Trust can be accumulated by communication, embedding in teams and networks.

1 Arend H. Zomer Ben et al., “Do Spin-Offs Make the Academics’ Heads Spin?” Minerva (2010) 48:331–353