eth ics plural noun [eth-iks] 1. a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture. 2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular group, culture, etc.: Scientific ethics; Medical ethics; Environmental ethics 3. moral principles of an individual 4. a branch of philosophy dealing with values in human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.
Major misconduct Inappropriate research on humans or animals Unsafe practices Fabrication of data or qualifications Plagiarism Self-plagiarism (publishing the same work multiple times) Suppression of inconvenient data or work of others Financial misconduct
Consequences of major misconduct Debarment - exclusion from participating in Federal transactions (3-5 years or longer) exclusion from review panels and other bodies, conditions for future grant proposals (supervision) institutional reform obligation to correct or retract publications loss of job fines or criminal charges
Some famous case studies Hwang Woo Suk (Biomedical) David Baltimore (Immunology) Jan Hendrik Schön (Solid state physics) Richard Meinertzhagen (Ornithology)
Minor misconduct Taking credit for others ideas Poor citation of relevant work Exaggeration of significance or quality of work Ignoring some data Altering data slightly Rejecting proposals or papers of competitors Poor scientific method minor misconduct is: common, but often not clear-cut, difficult to prove. questionable actions can be difficult to judge or avoid. science can be a messy business.
From Martinson et al., Nature, 2005
Most problems involve journal articles Usually an idealized representation of what was actually done. Rarely an accurate narrative. Reference lists often incomplete. (sometimes restricted by journal). Authorship issues. Frequent exaggeration of significance or quality of results (especially in proposals, but also journals). Poor scientific method underlying data/conclusions in publications. shoddy science.
Criteria for authorship from: Recommendations of the Commission on Professional Self Regulation in Science, DFG 1998 Authors of an original scientific publication shall be all those, and only those, who have made significant contributions to the conception of studies or experiments, to the generation, analysis and interpretation of the data, and to preparing the manuscript, and who have consented to its publication, thereby assuming responsibility for it. These do not justify authorship (on their own): responsibility for obtaining the funds for the research, contribution of important materials, training of co-authors in certain methods, involvement in the collection and assembly of data, directing an institution or working unit in which the publication originates These contributions warrant acknowledgements.
Question 1: What sort of training or teaching about scientific ethics did you receive at University? a) A single lecturer or seminar b) A lecture or seminar series c) none d) Other (responses included online training, university employer handbooks and signing a policy statement before starting a new job) 40 NONE! 30 20 10 0 a b c d
Question 2: You are collecting experimental / observational data. On what basis would you reject (not consider) an observation? a) statistical deviation from a mean or a regression line b) statistical deviation AND explanation for why the observation is an outlier c) the observed quantity is physically / theoretically impossible d) the result is inconsistent with accepted models of the process being studied 40 30 20 10 0 a b c d
Question 3: Have you experienced a situation where data (or model results) were rejected or manipulated on questionable grounds? a) Yes b) No c) Maybe 1 in 4 respondents have experienced situations where there has been at least suspicion of data manipulation 40 30 20 YES! 10 0 a b c
Question 4: You have invited a colleague with whom you have previously worked and exchanged ideas to be a co-author on a paper you are writing. When the paper is nearly ready for submission you have still received no comments or criticism from your colleague. You suspect that your colleague has not read the paper carefully. What should you do? a. remove the co-author s name and submit the manuscript b. request a critical reading with comments within a reasonable time c. keep the colleague as a co-author because you invited him/her to participate d. other 50 40 30 20 10 0 a b c d
Question 5: Which of the following should always, under all circumstances, be included as co-author(s) on a paper you are submitting: a. your PhD supervisor (if you are a PhD student) b. the grant holder whose project paid for the research c. the technicians who collected supporting data d. the Chief Scientist of a cruise/expedition or the Head of the laboratory where the research was conducted e. none of the above 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 a b c d e
Question 6: You have made an interesting and potentially important discovery and your PhD supervisor or boss says that he should be lead author on the paper in order to ensure that it is published quickly in a good journal. What should you do? a: accept the suggestion because the PhD supervisor / boss has more experience to write a better, more convincing paper b: insist that you should be lead author c: request the opportunity to write a 1 st draft of a paper in an agreed-upon amount of time d other 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 a b c d
Question 7: Have you experienced a situation, or are you aware of a situation, where a paper was submitted with authors names included, that had not read or commented on the manuscript? Or where the authorship order was inappropriate? a: Yes b: No c: Maybe 25 20 15 10 5 0 a b c
Question 8: You are asked to review a paper or proposal, the title of which suggests it is on exactly the same topic as you are working on yourself. What should you do? a. agree to review the paper or proposal because you are likely best-qualified to judge the quality of the research b. read the proposal/ paper in order to decide whether you can give it a fair and objective review c. decline to accept the paper / proposal for review and do not read it d. review the paper/proposal and contact the group to suggest a collaboration e. other 20 15 READ IT! DECLINE! 10 5 0 a b c d e
Question 9: You review a paper by a senior, influential colleague. You think the paper is very poor and should be rejected or needs very major revisions / correction. How do you submit your review? a: anonymously b: with disclosure of your full name? ANONYMOUSLY! 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 a b
Question 10: You review a paper by a senior, influential colleague. You think the paper is an excellent piece of work and you even make some useful and constructive suggestions for improvement and clarification. How do you submit your review? a: anonymously b: with disclosure of your full name? ANONYMOUSLY! 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 a b
Question 11: You have collected results that contradict earlier published work of your supervisor or an influential colleague. You believe the earlier work was either flawed, incorrect or misinterpreted. What do you do? a: cite the earlier work but without commenting on the possible reasons for the contradictory findings b: do not cite the earlier work c: present a rationale for why both sets of findings could possibly be consistent with each other d: present your criticism of the earlier published work in your manuscript e: other 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 a b c d e
Question 12: What, in your opinion, is the most serious form of scientific misconduct? Data manipulation Including... fabrication of results, altering results to fit a hypothesis, allowing others to publish data you know has been altered. Plagiarism Including...using or publishing someone else's data without giving credit, taking credit for someone else's ideas, failure to reference correctly.
Question 13:Have you had any direct exposure to, or knowledge of serious misconduct by others? a: Yes b: No c: Maybe / suspect 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 a b c MAYBE!
Question 14: What factors (psychological; work conditions, etc.) may contribute to an individual engaging in scientific misconduct? Answers included... Need to feel or appear successful Pressure to publish for funding or position Lack of future opportunities Pressure from boss, supervisor or funding agency Economic or political pressure Time pressure Lack of familiarity with standards
Causes of Misconduct Dishonesty Mental illness Ambition Pressure / stress Competition Unreasonable management Poor reward structures Unreasonable regulation
A Universal Ethical Code for Scientists? Rigour, honesty and integrity Respect for life, the law and the public good Responsible communication: listening and informing
Politics and science What if your scientific results have political implications that you don t like? Should you: suppress the science? (don t publish) ignore the implications? (just state the facts) explicitly address the implications? (not really science) find another venue in which to address the issue?
More information