Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) Paul R. Schwoebel. Department of Physics and Astronomy University of New Mexico Fall 2017

Transcription

1 Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) Paul R. Schwoebel Department of Physics and Astronomy University of New Mexico Fall

2 RCR training is recommended for all individuals supported by federal funds and required for those supported by NSF, NIH, or NIFA 2

3 RCR refresher training is required every 4 years There are two options at UNM 1. Online module 2. Attend workshop offered periodically throughout the year 3

4 The UNM RCR program is represented under the Academic Integrity and Research Ethics Initiative (AIRE) 4

5 5

6 One can think of RCR as developing decision making skills for a career in research The goals of this seminar are to: 1. Introduce students to common non-technical issues that can arise during the course of conducting research, with a focus on research in academia 2. Stimulate continued thought and discussion regarding such issues as often there are not clear answers 3. Certify students and postdoctoral appointees to work on federally funded projects, in particular National Science Foundation (NSF) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants. 6

7 Study topics are taken from the National Academies publication: On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research 1. Advising and Mentoring (This seminar starts this process) 2. The Treatment of Data 3. Mistakes and Negligence 4. Research Misconduct 5. Responding to Suspected Violations of Professional Standards 6. Human Participants and Animal Subjects in Research 7. Laboratory Safety in Research 8. Sharing of Research Results 9. Authorship and the Allocation of Credit 10. Intellectual Property 11. Competing Interests, Commitments, and Values 12. The Researcher in Society GREEN = Commonly Encountered BLUE = Less Commonly Encountered On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research Free pdf available from: With supplemental information taken from Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research, US Dept. of Health and Human Services Free pdf available from: ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/rcrintro.pdf 7

8 Many of the study topics involve knowledge and application of professional standards 1. Advising and Mentoring (Transfer of professional standards to beginning researcher) 2. The Treatment of Data (Guided/defined by professional standards) 3. Mistakes and Negligence (Defined by professional standards) 4. Research Misconduct (Defined by professional standards) 5. Responding to Suspected Violations of Professional Standards (Guided by professional standards and employee institution) 6. Human Participants and Animal Subjects in Research (Guided by professional standards and governed by laws) 7. Laboratory Safety in Research (Guided/defined by professional standards and laws) 8. Sharing of Research Results (Guided by professional standards and employee institution) 9. Authorship and the Allocation of Credit (Guided by professional standards) 10. Intellectual Property (Defined by employee institution) 11. Competing Interests, Commitments, and Values (Interpreted by employee institution) 12. The Researcher in Society (Guided by professional standards) 8

9 The goal of advising and mentoring is to prepare students to become productive researchers 1. Guide students through decision making processes involved in research including those beyond the process of scientific investigation itself Examples include the topics covered in the National Academies Guide: Responding to Suspected Violations of Professional Standards, Sharing of Research Results, Authorship and the Allocation of Credit, etc.. 2. Provide a research environment that is supportive, effective, and supervised Note National Academies guidance on Choosing a Research Group (p. 6) 9

10 The National Academies publication suggests valuable questions to consider when choosing a research group Who oversees the work of beginning researchers? Will a research adviser also serve as a mentor? If so, what is that person s mentoring style? What role does a trainee have in choosing and developing a project? How long do graduate students or postdoctoral fellows typically take to finish their training? What are the sources of funding for a project and is the funding likely to be disrupted? Do beginning researchers participate in writing journal articles. How are they recognized as authors? How much competition is there among group members and between the group and other groups? Are there potential dangers from chemical, biological, or radioactive agents? If so, what training is offered? What are the policies regarding ownership of intellectual property developed by the group? Are graduate students and postdoctoral fellows discouraged from continuing their projects when they leave? Are graduate students and postdoctoral fellows both encouraged and funded to attend professional meetings and make presentations? Are there opportunities for other kinds of professional development, such as giving lectures, supervising others, or applying for funds? 10

11 The goal of advising and mentoring is to prepare students to become productive researchers 1. Guide students through decision making processes involved in research including those beyond the process of scientific investigation itself Examples include the topics covered in the National Academies Guide: Responding to Suspected Violations of Professional Standards, Sharing of Research Results, Authorship and the Allocation of Credit, etc.. 2. Provide a research environment that is supportive, effective, and supervised Note National Academies guidance on Choosing a Research Group (p. 6) 3. Facilitate transition to independent research and post-degree activities Insure graded levels of self-reliance, involvement in proposal activities and publications, etc. The thesis advisor and mentor may not be the same person 11

12 Understanding mutual advisor/mentor-mentee responsibilities can help prevent conflict Please provide some examples of advisor/mentor responsibilities that are more specific than the general ideas mentioned on the previous page: Please provide some examples of mentee responsibilities: 12

13 The advisor s perspective on mutual responsibilities may, or may not, be different from those of the student/postdoctoral fellow Some specific examples of advisor/mentor responsibilities: Insure student s best interests are in mind Teach high standards of professional conduct by example and knowledge transfer Give mentee adequate time and supervision for degree completion Provide mentee with well-defined expectations for time spent doing research Define how mentee performance will be judged Layout how authorship and data will be handled Aid with socialization, i.e. the interaction with the scientific community at all levels Serve as an advocate Provide career path guidance Some examples of mentee responsibilities: Conduct thorough and conscientious research Develop independence Be proactive and self-advocate 13

14 Examining specific cases can highlight the complexity and importance of advisor/mentor - mentee relationships and their mutual responsibilities 1. Columbia RCR Case Example: The Business of Mentoring 2. Advisor/Mentor student relationships can be as varied as is imaginable 14

15 Study topics are taken from the National Academies publication: On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research 1. Advising and Mentoring GREEN = Commonly Encountered BLUE = Less Commonly Encountered 2. The Treatment of Data 3. Mistakes and Negligence 4. Research Misconduct 5. Responding to Suspected Violations of Professional Standards 6. Human Participants and Animal Subjects in Research 7. Laboratory Safety in Research 8. Sharing of Research Results 9. Authorship and the Allocation of Credit 10. Intellectual Property 11. Competing Interests, Commitments, and Values 12. The Researcher in Society 15

16 Data treatment is a multifaceted topic that can involve both technical and legal issues. Key aspects arising in the treatment of data are: 1. Collection Laboratory dependent within standards Well-designed experiments and thorough laboratory note taking habits are very important. Plot as you go. 2. Interpretation and Analysis Laboratory dependent within standards - Sometimes the unexpected is the important result. 3. Archiving Funding agency and/or employer dependent. It is important to have good records for future students that follow, IP issues, and to satisfy employer/funding agency requirements. Online accessible archiving is now common and sometimes required - UNM library system provides assistance. 4. Ownership Data ownership can be a contentious issue: Jessica Banks Case 16

17 Data ownership does not necessarily lie with the person that collected the data 1. Government grants, the common US Government funding instrument for academia, give the ownership of data/results to the funded institution 2. Government contracts, the common US Government funding instrument for industry, typically retain government rights to the data/results 3. Private companies most often issue contracts and retain the data/results for commercial use 4. Philanthropic organizations issue grants or contracts and retain or release data/results depending upon their end-goal 17

18 Data ownership is typically defined by policies of the employer and/or funding source 1. Gui 18

19 Study topics are taken from the National Academies publication: On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research 1. Advising and Mentoring GREEN = Commonly Encountered BLUE = Less Commonly Encountered 2. The Treatment of Data 3. Mistakes and Negligence 4. Research Misconduct 5. Responding to Suspected Violations of Professional Standards 6. Human Participants and Animal Subjects in Research 7. Laboratory Safety in Research 8. Sharing of Research Results 9. Authorship and the Allocation of Credit 10. Intellectual Property 11. Competing Interests, Commitments, and Values 12. The Researcher in Society 19

20 Mistakes happen and can be corrected - Mistakes due to negligence can be avoided 1. Negligence Oxford English Dictionary Negligence. Lack of attention to what ought to be done; lack of necessary or reasonable care in doing something; carelessness Demonstrates a lack of interest and responsibility 2. Mistakes Often averted by good data collection, interpretation, and analysis (consultation with others can be helpful as specific expertise is needed).. nevertheless mistakes happen and should be corrected ASAP Journals have methods for correcting errors in publications For conference abstracts, presentations, and unpublished proceedings one viable option is to correct in a subsequent publication 20

21 Group Presentation Assignments 1. Break into 7 groups of two 2. Pick group number assignments 3. Pick topics by group number assignments PRESENTATION SCHEDULE December 1: Groups 1 3 December 8: Groups

22 The Cold Fusion episode in the late 1980 s is a good example of poor decision making in science Reference: 2012 UC Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley. World needs to address energy needs in a sustainable manner. Fusion energy is a clean energy source from seawater Pons and Fleishman (P&F) at the University of Utah claim to have solved the world energy problems with what appears to be a high-school chemistry experiment (electrolysis of water) P&F apply for a research grant to study cold-fusion. A peer reviewer for the grant, Jones (a nuclear physicist), turns out to be working on the same fusion approach and suggests collaboration. P&F refuse, convinced he stole their ideas from the grant proposal. The possibility of being scooped by the peer reviewer s group caused P&F to rush to publish, ignoring both the need for thorough experimental evidence and an agreement to simultaneously publish with Jones. Despite an abbreviated peer reviewing process used by the journal, results were actually first announced to the general scientific community (and public) at a press conference. Numerous research institutions around the world immediately tried to replicate the cold fusion results with many making mistakes themselves in the rush to get data. Replication was very difficult due to lack of experimental details published. Details were withheld in part because U of Utah wanted to first file a patent. P&F finally allowed for independent tests on their apparatus and no evidence of fusion could be found. One year of intense effort elapsed before the idea of cold fusion was discredited. P&F refused to believe cold fusion was not occurring, despite vast evidence to the contrary. 22

23 The Cold Fusion episode serves as an example of many things in research that can go wrong and right Cold Fusion episode provides an example of nearly everything not to do in research 1. Advising and Mentoring 2. The Treatment of Data 3. Mistakes and Negligence 4. Research Misconduct 5. Responding to Suspected Violations of Professional Standards 6. Human Participants and Animal Subjects in Research 7. Laboratory Safety in Research 8. Sharing of Research Results 9. Authorship and the Allocation of Credit 10. Intellectual Property 11. Competing Interests, Commitments, and Values 12. The Researcher in Society 23

24 The Cold Fusion episode serves as an example of many things in research that can go wrong and right Cold Fusion episode provides an example of nearly everything not to do in research 1. Advising and Mentoring 2. The Treatment of Data 3. Mistakes and Negligence 4. Research Misconduct 5. Responding to Suspected Violations of Professional Standards 6. Human Participants and Animal Subjects in Research 7. Laboratory Safety in Research 8. Sharing of Research Results 9. Authorship and the Allocation of Credit 10. Intellectual Property 11. Competing Interests, Commitments, and Values 12. The Researcher in Society What went right? Despite circumventing many checks in the scientific system, Cold Fusion was discredited in < 1 year 24

25 Study topics are taken from the National Academies publication: On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research 1. Advising and Mentoring GREEN = Commonly Encountered BLUE = Less Commonly Encountered 2. The Treatment of Data 3. Mistakes and Negligence 4. Research Misconduct 5. Responding to Suspected Violations of Professional Standards 6. Human Participants and Animal Subjects in Research 7. Laboratory Safety in Research 8. Sharing of Research Results 9. Authorship and the Allocation of Credit 10. Intellectual Property 11. Competing Interests, Commitments, and Values 12. The Researcher in Society 25

26 Research misconduct involves deception, something quite distinct from mistakes and negligence The Federal government definition of Research Misconduct Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. Fabrication is defined as making up data or results Falsification is defined as manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record Plagiarism is defined as the appropriation of another s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving proper credit 26

27 Cases of research misconduct appear to be rising at rates that are greater than publication rates Research misconduct rates are estimated to be of the order of 2% of researchers In 2011 Nature estimated that published retractions increased by 1000% over the past 10 years while the number of scientific publications had only risen by ~ 45%. ne-half of the retractions were due to scientific misconduct. In 2012 NAS study of life sciences publications found that 3/4 of retractions were precipitated by misconduct, including plagiarism and falsification of data and images. The reason(s) for increase in cases are unclear better scrutiny?, greater competition?, publish-or-perish-pressure?,.. 27

28 UNM s definition of research misconduct follows federal guidelines and has defined reporting and investigative procedures Highlights of UNM Research Misconduct Policy research.unm.edu/policiesprocedures/researchmisconduct.pdf 3.6 Confidentiality Care will be exercised at all times to ensure confidentiality to the maximum extent possible and to protect the privacy of persons involved in the research under inquiry or investigation. The privacy of those who report misconduct in good faith will also be protected to the maximum extent possible. Files involved in an inquiry or investigation shall be kept secure and applicable state and federal law shall be followed regarding confidentiality of personnel records. 4.1 An initial report of alleged research misconduct shall be treated and brought in a confidential manner to the attention of the faculty member or other person (e.g., chairperson, supervisor, director, principal investigator) responsible for the researcher(s) whose actions are in question, or to the dean of the researcher s college, or to the Vice Provost for Research (for allegations concerning a main campus researcher) or Vice President for Health Sciences (for allegations concerning a HSC researcher). The person receiving the initial report shall, in turn, make an immediate confidential report of the allegations to the Vice Provost for Research or Vice President for Health Sciences, as appropriate. 28

29 Research misconduct is dealt with harshly 1. A fundamental assumption in science is trust in the results of others 2. Misconduct leads to wasted time and resources 3. Misconduct discredits science in the public eye 29

30 The Bell Labs Schön episode in the early 2000s was a debacle that was widely publicized From Science (2002) and Wikipedia Schön scandal There was (and is) significant interest in development of organic or plastic and molecular based electronics - inexpensive, flexible, small size, etc. Following suggestions by Horst Stromer (1998 Nobel Laureate in Physics - Fractional Quantum Hall Effect) at Bell Labs in 2000, Jan Hendrick Schön reported the development of an organic FET with useful electrical characteristics. The gate insulator was an Al 2 O 3 layer with incredible electrical characteristics. Within a few months Schön reported observation of first the Quantum Hall Effect and then the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect in his organic semiconductors. The organic FETs were then used to drive crystals of C 60 superconducting at 11 K and within one year they reported superconductivity of C 60 crystals at 117 K. From Schön and his colleagues at Bell reported the development of organic lasers and photovoltaics and finally the development of a molecular-scale organic transistor, a potentially revolutionary technology. Schön was lead author or coauthored ~ 90 papers in 4 years, many in Science and Nature. The work had the potential to shift the semiconductor industry from silicon to organic based electronics. The Bell research could not be reproduced by other laboratories for over 2-years and under scrutiny, researchers began to notice problems with the Bell data. Also reproduction of the special Al 2 O 3 was not possible. In 2002 Bell launched an internal investigation. Schön could not produce any laboratory notebooks or record of data used for the papers and finally admitted doctoring data - he was fired from Bell and stripped of his Ph.D. All coauthors were found not guilty of misconduct and this precipitated debate about responsibility and coauthorship. Schön s doctoral degree was revoked in 2004 and remained so after several court appeals ending in

31 Study topics are taken from the National Academies publication: On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research 1. Advising and Mentoring GREEN = Commonly Encountered BLUE = Less Commonly Encountered 2. The Treatment of Data 3. Mistakes and Negligence 4. Research Misconduct 5. Responding to Suspected Violations of Professional Standards 6. Human Participants and Animal Subjects in Research 7. Laboratory Safety in Research 8. Sharing of Research Results 9. Authorship and the Allocation of Credit 10. Intellectual Property 11. Competing Interests, Commitments, and Values 12. The Researcher in Society 31

32 Violations of professional standards require intervention on the part of the observer 1. One must first be familiar with professional standards to recognize violations thereof 2. One should differentiate between misconduct and mistakes/negligence in how the situation is handled 3. If one witnesses scientific misconduct one is obligated to act by consulting with: A colleague/friend or trusted faculty member A University Official such as the Department Chair The designated office, i.e. AIRE 32

33 Study topics are taken from the National Academies publication: On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research 1. Advising and Mentoring GREEN = Commonly Encountered BLUE = Less Commonly Encountered 2. The Treatment of Data 3. Mistakes and Negligence 4. Research Misconduct 5. Responding to Suspected Violations of Professional Standards 6. Human Participants and Animal Subjects in Research 7. Laboratory Safety in Research 8. Sharing of Research Results 9. Authorship and the Allocation of Credit 10. Intellectual Property 11. Competing Interests, Commitments, and Values 12. The Researcher in Society 33

34 The use of human participants and animal subjects in research is highly regulated Various infamous events precipitated formal protections for humans and animals in research Human subjects are used in studies to improve human health. Regulations are intended to insure the benefits to general human health gained do not over burden the participants Animals are typically used in studies to benefit human health, not animal health. Regulations are intended to protect animals as they cannot advocate for themselves 34

35 Federal guidelines stipulate how humans and animals may be used in research 1. Human Participation Federal regulations (Common Rule) provide requirements for human participation Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) protect the rights and welfare of human subjects 2. Animal Use Animal Welfare Act (1966 with updates) provides rules for animal use Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (National Academies) provides detailed practical information Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) protect animal interests and insure compliance with all rules and regulations 35

36 Study topics are taken from the National Academies publication: On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research 1. Advising and Mentoring GREEN = Commonly Encountered BLUE = Less Commonly Encountered 2. The Treatment of Data 3. Mistakes and Negligence 4. Research Misconduct 5. Responding to Suspected Violations of Professional Standards 6. Human Participants and Animal Subjects in Research 7. Laboratory Safety in Research 8. Sharing of Research Results 9. Authorship and the Allocation of Credit 10. Intellectual Property 11. Competing Interests, Commitments, and Values 12. The Researcher in Society 36

37 Laboratory safety in research is very important and often not highlighted 9 PEOPLE INJURED OR KILLED BY THEIR OWN SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS 37

38 38

39 Laboratory safety training can reduce accident rates and improve one s response to emergencies Basic Annual Safety Training is required of all UNM employees First Aid and CPR training can be very useful - take annually Know standard emergency response: Emergency numbers and location of land lines Location of fire extinguishers Egress routes Other training of value Electrical Safety Chemical Safety Radiation Safety 39

40 Study topics are taken from the National Academies publication: On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research 1. Advising and Mentoring GREEN = Commonly Encountered BLUE = Less Commonly Encountered 2. The Treatment of Data 3. Mistakes and Negligence 4. Research Misconduct 5. Responding to Suspected Violations of Professional Standards 6. Human Participants and Animal Subjects in Research 7. Laboratory Safety in Research 8. Sharing of Research Results 9. Authorship and the Allocation of Credit 10. Intellectual Property 11. Competing Interests, Commitments, and Values 12. The Researcher in Society 40

41 Authorship, allocation of credit, and peer-review go hand-in-hand with the dissemination of scientific results Authorship selection can cover the complete spectrum of possibilities: FROM THIS which won Hans Bethe the 1967 Nobel Prize in Physics: For his contributions to the theory of nuclear reactions, especially his discoveries concerning the energy production in stars 41

42 TO THIS 42

43 Authorship and allocation of credit follow general guidelines but there is grey area 1. Journals and organizations typically provide general criteria for authorship APS guideline: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the concept, design, execution or interpretation of the research study. All those who have made significant contributions should be offered the opportunity to be listed as authors. Other individuals who have contributed to the study should be acknowledged, but not identified as authors. 2. The order of authors means different things in different disciplines and situations. Besides alphabetical listings, typically the first, and sometimes also the last, author are the positions of prominence 3. Many believe all authors share responsibility for a paper s content unless clearly specified otherwise 4. Credit should be more generously allotted to young researchers 43

44 Peer-review is the evaluation of something by people with similar knowledge and experience 1. In science, peer-review is used commonly in two ways: Review proposals for funding Review papers for publication 2. When reviewing proposals or papers the peer-reviewer has welldefined responsibilities: Conduct a timely and careful review Provide constructive criticism without personal bias. If personal bias is unavoidable, recuse one s self. Keep the reviewed work confidential 44

45 The sharing of research results, i.e. the dissemination of research results, has procedures based in standards of professional conduct 1. Traditionally results are disseminated by publication in a peer-reviewed journal Peer review, i.e. the review of the paper by an expert in the field of research covered by the manuscript prior to its publication, is used to insure high quality First to publish receives credit for results 2. An essential component of a high-quality publication is the inclusion of proper citations for prior work in the area Publications of similar/related work should cite original work Referencing review articles is useful, but reference and read key original work when necessary 45

46 There are several other common methods for the dissemination of research results besides peer-reviewed publications 1. Abstracts and oral or poster presentations at conferences Effectively shares results with interested scientific community given good choice of conference 2. On-line posting of results, raw data, computer programs, etc. can assist other researchers Note that on-line publication can negate subsequent publication in a peerreviewed journal Inaccurate results can mislead others Note: It is common and accepted practice to keep research data confidential until it has been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal 46

47 Avoid common bad practices in publishing your results 1. Don t try to artificially inflate your number of publications by: Publishing essentially the same material in multiple journals Breaking up what could be one complete, thorough publication into multiple publications to increase your number of papers You do a disservice to the research community by producing incomplete works Your colleagues notice these things immediately and frown upon you for this practice 2. Although not often a consideration, don t publish in the popular press before having the results accepted for publication in a good peerreviewed journal remember Cold Fusion. 47

48 Study topics are taken from the National Academies publication: On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research 1. Advising and Mentoring GREEN = Commonly Encountered BLUE = Less Commonly Encountered 2. The Treatment of Data 3. Mistakes and Negligence 4. Research Misconduct 5. Responding to Suspected Violations of Professional Standards 6. Human Participants and Animal Subjects in Research 7. Laboratory Safety in Research 8. Sharing of Research Results 9. Authorship and the Allocation of Credit 10. Intellectual Property 11. Competing Interests, Commitments, and Values 12. The Researcher in Society 48

49 As discussed under data ownership intellectual property procedures and policy are typically defined by the employer and/or funding source and can impact how research results are shared OXFORD DICTIONARIES: Intellectual property (Law). A work or invention that is the result of creativity, such as a manuscript or a design, to which one has rights and for which one may apply for a patent, copyright, etc.. Patent. A government authority or license conferring a right or title for a set period, especially the sole right to exclude others from making, using, or selling an invention. Copyright. The exclusive legal right, given to an originator or an assignee to print, publish, perform, film, or record literary, artistic, or musical material, and to authorize others to do the same. 49

50 Be aware of what may have value as intellectual property 1. Patents can result in royalties being paid to both the institution and the individual inventors 2. Publication/public disclosure prior to proper protection of potential intellectual property can negate subsequent patent applications 3. With publications in scientific journals copyrights for the material are transferred from the institution/researcher to the journal 50

51 Study topics from On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research 1. Advising and Mentoring GREEN = Commonly Encountered BLUE = Less Commonly Encountered 2. The Treatment of Data 3. Mistakes and Negligence 4. Research Misconduct 5. Responding to Suspected Violations of Professional Standards 6. Human Participants and Animal Subjects in Research 7. Laboratory Safety in Research 8. Sharing of Research Results 9. Authorship and the Allocation of Credit 10. Intellectual Property 11. Competing Interests, Commitments, and Values 12. The Researcher in Society

52 Competing interests, commitments and personal matters arise, but with full disclosure most institutional policies allow such issues to be managed Conflicts of Interest (COI) can arise in three particularly sensitive areas: 1. Financial benefit: Within professional standards, i.e. patents Note that the opportunity to benefit financially can hamper the honest and objective execution of a project. 2. Commitments to work Multiple duties require time-sharing among those duties: several research projects, outside employment such as consulting, etc. 3. Personal matters These matters are typically easily resolved, i.e., don t peer-review proposals and papers of close friends, serve objectively on advisory committees, etc. 52

53 The researcher in society topic addresses social responsibility Wikipedia - Social Responsibility An ethical theory that an entity, be it an organization or individual, has an obligation to act to benefit society at large. The researcher can strive to serve society with science by: Being honest and forthright, accurate, and impartial in their work Considering the societal consequences of their research 53

54 Study topics from On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research UPDATE WITH GROUP PRESENTATION SCHEDULE