Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Norwegian University of Life SciencesTpublication and Authorship 1
RESEARCH ETHICS –Fraud and Misconduct
MNSES9100
RESEARCH ETHICS MNSES9100 Deborah Oughton
2
Research Ethics: Three areas of responsibility
• Scientific community: research norms, misconduct, publication
• Research subjects: humans, animals
• Society: the public, environment, patents, technological risk
Misconduct concerns
STAP (Stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency) –Nature, Japan
Photo, Haruko Obokata
RESEARCH ETHICS MNSES9100 Deborah Oughton
4
Misconduct and Fraud in Norway
• Jon Sudbø–Paper published in the Lancet
October 2005 - Sudbø admitted fabrication of data January 2006
–Independent commissionappointed January 2006 to investigate all papers, including PhD and co-authors(60)
–Now working as assistantdentist in Seljord
RESEARCH ETHICS MNSES9100 Deborah Oughton
11 mistenkt for juks
SKUFFET: Dekan Finn Georg B. Wisløff tar mistanken om eksamensfusk blant doktorgradsstipendiatene alvorlig. OTO: Brian Olguin
7
• Ethics – The philosophical study of right and wrong conduct and the
rules and principles that ought to guide it (“the oughts and the shoulds”).
• Scientific Research – The conduct of scientists
Ethics of Scientific Research
RESEARCH ETHICS MNSES9100 Deborah Oughton
Research Fraud and Misconduct
• What is research fraud?
• Why does it happen?
• How often does it happen?
• How is it controlled?
9
Dutch psychologistDiederik Stapel www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/13/scientific-research-fraud-bad-practice
Pablo Macchiarini, Karolinska
RESEARCH ETHICS MNSES9100 Deborah Oughton
10
The Patchwork Mouse (1974)
• William T. Summerlin• Chief of transplantation immunology at
Sloan-Kettering• Claimed he could transplant onto
animals corneas, glands, and skin that would normally be rejected —sometimes even across species.
• The fraud discovered after three years when a lab assistant noticed that the black “skin graphs” were drawn on with a marker.
“my error was not in knowingly promulgating false data, but rather in succumbing
to extreme pressure placed on me by the institute director to publish information".
PublicationPressure
RESEARCH ETHICS MNSES9100 Deborah Oughton
11
Famous Frauds in Science
• The Piltdown Man (1908-12)
The Hoax
RESEARCH ETHICS MNSES9100 Deborah Oughton
Hoax papers
12RESEARCH ETHICS MNSES9100 Deborah Oughton
14
Famous Frauds in Science
• Cyril Burt (twin study 1943)
• IQ studies on identical twins
• Posthumously accused of fraudand fabrication
Cyril Burt 1881-1971I know I am right
RESEARCH ETHICS MNSES9100 Deborah Oughton
RESEACH ETHICS MNSES9100 Deborah Oughton15
Famous Frauds in Science
• Hwang Woo-Suk (embryonicstem cells and cloning)
I want fame and fortune
Scientific Fraud and Misconduct
Scientific misconduct is defined as ‘behavior by a researcher, intentional or not, that falls short of good ethical and scientific standards’
Fraud “deliberate intention to mislead”
18
NENT: Den nasjonale forskningsetiske komité for naturvitenskap og teknologi www.etikkom.noLov om organisering av forskningsetisk arbeid (forskningsetikkloven)(www.lovdata.no)
RESEARCH ETHICS MNSES9100 Deborah Oughton
19
Scientific Fraud and Misconduct 1. Fabrication and construction of data (forgery)2. Data manipulation (selection, substitution, misleading
statistical methods)3. Deliberate distortion of results or conclusions4. Plagiarism of results, publications or ideas5. Proposal applications containing incorrect information6. Inappropriate author credit (omission or honorary
author credit) 7. Negligent filing and storage of data
NENT: Den nasjonale forskningsetiske komité for naturvitenskap og teknologi www.etikkom.noLov om organisering av forskningsetisk arbeid (forskningsetikkloven)(www.lovdata.no)
RESEARCH ETHICS MNSES9100 Deborah Oughton
When are deviations from «The Scientific Method» problematic?
RESEACH ETHICS MNSES9100 Deborah Oughton20
• Because they don’t follow established norms?
• When they are ethically questionable?
#overlyhonestmethods
RESEACH ETHICS MNSES9100 Deborah Oughton
A modified protocol was implemented because a certain graduate student seems unable to follow simple instructions. #overlyhonestmethods
We didn’t show the structure because we forgot to patent it so only three people actually know what it is. #overlyhonestmethods
RESEARCH ETHICS MNSES9100 Deborah Oughton
Error bars represent SEM rather than 2SD as it looks significant that way. #overlyhonestmethods
"Experiment was repeated until we had three statistically significant similar results and could discard the outliers" #overlyhonestmethods
RESEARCH ETHICS MNSES9100 Deborah Oughton
24
1. Quick round of introduction: name + area of research
2. Elect a group reporter
3. Discussion
• When might #overlyhonestmethods represent deviations from good practice or ethically questionable actions, or undermine the integrity of science?
• Do you have your own suggestions for #overlyhonestmethods?
• What other examples can you think of for grey areas of “questionable research practice”
Group Discussion – The «Scientific Method» -Is honesty the best policy?
RESEARCH ETHICS MNSES9100 Deborah Oughton
Group Discussion 1415-1500
• Group 1: Fysik Ø397• Group 2: HE 232• Group 3: HE 494• Group 4: Aud 2 Front• Group 5: Aud 2 Back• Group 6: HE Canteen
Feedback Session 1515 HE Aud 2
RESEARCH ETHICS MNSES9100 Deborah Oughton
RESEACH ETHICS MNSES9100 Deborah Oughton
28
Scientific Fraud and Misconduct
1. Fabrication and construction of data (forgery)2. Data manipulation (selection, substitution, misleading
statistical methods)3. Deliberate distortion of results or conclusions4. Plagiarism of results, publications or ideas5. Proposal applications containing incorrect information6. Inappropriate author credit (omission or honorary
author credit) 7. Negligent filing and storage of data
NENT: Den nasjonale forskningsetiske komité for naturvitenskap og teknologi www.etikkom.noLov om organisering av forskningsetisk arbeid (forskningsetikkloven)(www.lovdata.no)
RESEACH ETHICS MNSES9100 Deborah Oughton31
Trimming the data ?
• Milikan’s Oil Drop Experiment (1916)
• Gregor Mendel (1866)
More onWednesday
Norwegian University of Life SciencesTittel på presentasjon 32
HTTPS://XKCD.COM/2048/IMAGE URL (FOR
HOTLINKING/EMBEDDING): HTTPS://IMGS.XKCD.COM/COMIC
S/CURVE_FITTING.PNG
Plagarism
• Plagiarism of publications (in whole or in part) is frequently defined as “the wrongful appropriation, closeimitation, or purloining and publication, of anotherauthor’s language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions, and the representation of them as one’s own original work”.
Norwegian University of Life SciencesPublication and Authorshio –Deborah.Oughton@nmbu,ni
33
RESEACH ETHICS MNSES9100 Deborah Oughton34
Famous Plagiarists
• Vijay Soman, an assistant professor at Yale, was asked by his boss Philip Felig to peer review a paper by Helena Wachslicht-Rodbard. Felig and Soman sent back a negative review, delaying publication, then Soman turned around and submitted virtually the same paper to another journal.
• Guess who got the paper to review?
RESEACH ETHICS MNSES9100 Deborah Oughton35
Case study: “The Baltimore Affair”
A case of data manipulation and fraud accusations between scientists that shocked America; damaged the reputation of a Nobel prize-winner and the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT); and sparked a governmental level investigation.
Daniel Kevles. 1998. The Baltimore Case: A Trial of Politics, Science and Character
RESEACH ETHICS MNSES9100 Deborah Oughton 36
The Players
• Prof. David Baltimore: Nobel Prize winner (1975). Director of the Biomedical Research Institute at MIT.
• Dr Thereza Imanishi-Kari: colleague and co-author.• Dr. Margaret O’Toole: “Whistle-Blower” .• Walter Steward & Ned Feder: NIH “Science Police”• US Rep. John Dingell: Congress representative.
37
The Plot
• April 1986: Joint paper published in “Cell”• 1986: O’Toole challenged data• 1987: 2 inquiries (MIT and Tufts Univ.)• 1988: Congress investigation started. Baltimore defended the
paper and appealed to scientists to help fight this “threat to scientific communication and freedom”. O’Toole loses her job
• April 1991: Report published to mass media coverage: found evidence of serious misconduct, data fabrication and heavily criticised Baltimore’s conduct.
• Dec. 1991: Baltimore resigned as President of Rockefeller University
RESEACH ETHICS MNSES9100 Deborah Oughton
RESEACH ETHICS MNSES9100 Deborah Oughton38
Aftermath
• Baltimore and Imanshi-Kari cleared in 1996 (not fraud but sloppy science and bad practice)
• Both still working as scientists• Repercussions in ”interference” of
government in research• Disquiet about the role of industry funding
and whether it promotes fraud and bias• What is fraud; what is personal conflict;
what is scientific disagreement?
«It’s hard to tell the jerks from the cheats» Head of the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty, 2003
- Demarcation of science from pseudoscience
- Publication and Authorship (Vancouver Recommendations)
Thursday 7th
Recommended Literature: Feyerabend paper
Tuesday 5th