RCR Presentation Revised

  • View
    220

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Text of RCR Presentation Revised

  • 7/25/2019 RCR Presentation Revised

    1/30

    RCRResponsible Conduct of

    Research

  • 7/25/2019 RCR Presentation Revised

    2/30

    Presentation Material Credit

    On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research, ThirdEdition, The National Academies

    Michael Kalichman, Director, UC San Dieo Research Ethics Proram

    !rani"ed for SUR#$%T b& Said Sho'air, UC% UR!P Director

    Re$orani"ed for %CS (onors Proram b& Ric' )athrop, %CS$(P Director

  • 7/25/2019 RCR Presentation Revised

    3/30

    RCR Trainin Re*uirement

    To compl& +ith the re*uirements of the federal AmericaC!MPETES America Creatin Opportunities to Meaninfull&

    Promote E-cellence in Technolo&, Education and Science. Act,

    all underraduate and raduate students, and postdoctoral scholars

    supported b& National Science #oundation funds must complete acourse in the Responsible Conduct of Research/

  • 7/25/2019 RCR Presentation Revised

    4/30

    The most basic basics

    0 Three deadl& sins of research misconduct12 #abrication

    2 #alsification

    2 Plaiarism

    0 The most basic basics are *uite simple12 Don3t lie

    2 Don3t cheat

    2 Don3t steal

    0 Comple- cases re*uire thouht and 4udment/2 Communication and Professionalism are 'e&/

  • 7/25/2019 RCR Presentation Revised

    5/30

    Researchers3 !bliations 5

    Responsibilities

    !bliations

    To honor the trust that their colleaues place in them

    To themsel6es To act in +a&s that ser6e the public

    Responsibilities

    Research: Data, 7ias, Reulations, Misconduct Researchers: Communication, Dissemination, Credit,

    Mentorin Society: Research #ocus, Public Understandin, Public

    Polic&/

  • 7/25/2019 RCR Presentation Revised

    6/30

    RCR Trainin Topics

    Ad6isin and Mentorin The Treatment of DataMista'es and Nelience Research Misconduct

    Respondin to Suspected 8iolations of ProfessionalStandards

    (uman Participants and Animal Sub4ects in Research )aborator& Safet& in Research

    Sharin of Research Results Authorship and the Allocation of Credit %ntellectual Propert& Competin %nterests, Commitments, and 8alues The Researcher in Societ&

  • 7/25/2019 RCR Presentation Revised

    7/30

    Ad6isin 5 MentorinCase Study

    9oseph came bac' from a brief summer 6acation con6inced that he +ould beable to finish up his Ph/D/ in one more semester/ Thouh he had notdiscussed the status of his thesis +ith his ad6iser or an& other member ofhis thesis committee since the sprin, he +as sure the& +ould aree that hecould finish up *uic'l&/ %n fact, he had alread& beun dra+in up a list ofcompanies to +hich he planned to appl& for a research position/

    (o+e6er, +hen his research ad6iser heard about his plans, she immediatel&ob4ected/ She told him that the measurements he had made +ere not ointo be enouh to satisf& his dissertation committee/ She said that he shouldplan to spend at least t+o more semesters on campus doin additionalmeasurements and finishin his dissertation/

    9oseph had al+a&s had a ood +or'in relationship +ith his ad6iser, and herad6ice had been 6er& helpful in the past/ Plus, he 'ne+ that he +ould needa ood recommendation from her to et the 4obs that he +anted/ 7ut hecouldn3t help but +onder if her ad6ice this time miht be self$ser6in, sinceher o+n research +ould benefit reatl& from the additional set of

    measurements/

  • 7/25/2019 RCR Presentation Revised

    8/30

    Ad6isin 5 MentorinCase Study -- Questions

    TRUE or FALSE1 %f 9oseph3s ad6iser indeed +ants him toperform the additional measurements solel& to benefit herresearch, this 6iolates a basic principle of mentorin/

    TRUE/ :The main role of an ad6iser or mentor is to help aresearcher mo6e alon a producti6e and successful careertra4ector& On Being a Scientist, p/ ;./< Mentors and ad6isersshould model a hih standard of conduct/

    TRUE or FALSE1 The responsibilit& for 9oseph3s problemlies +ith the ad6iser, +ho should ha6e been clearer ine-pressin her e-pectations/

    FALSE/ Clarif&in e-pectations is 4ointl& the responsibilit&

    of the ad6iser and the student/

  • 7/25/2019 RCR Presentation Revised

    9/30

    The Treatment of Data $$ Case StudyDeborah, a third$&ear raduate student, and Kamala, a postdoctoral fello+, ha6e made a series of

    measurements on a ne+ e-perimental semiconductor material usin an e-pensi6e neutron test

    at a national laborator&/ =hen the& return to their o+n laborator& and e-amine the data, ane+l& proposed mathematical e-planation of the semiconductor3s beha6ior predicts resultsindicated b& a cur6e/

    Durin the measurements at the national laborator&, Deborah and Kamala obser6ed electricalpo+er fluctuations that the& could not control or predict +ere affectin their detector/ The&suspect the fluctuations affected some of their measurements, but the& don3t 'no+ +hich ones/

    =hen Deborah and Kamala bein to +rite up their results to present at a lab meetin, +hich the&'no+ +ill be the first step in preparin a publication, Kamala suests droppin t+o anomalousdata points near the hori"ontal a-is from the raph the& are preparin/ She sa&s that due totheir de6iation from the theoretical cur6e, the lo+ data points +ere ob6iousl& caused b& thepo+er fluctuations/ #urthermore, the de6iations +ere outside the e-pected error bars calculatedfor the remainin data points/

    Deborah is concerned that droppin the t+o points could be seen as manipulatin the data/ She and

    Kamala could not be sure that an& of their data points, if an&, +ere affected b& the po+erfluctuations/ The& also did not 'no+ if the theoretical prediction +as 6alid/ She +ants to do aseparate anal&sis that includes the points and discuss the issue in the lab meetin/ 7ut Kamalasa&s that if the& include the data points in their tal', others +ill thin' the issue importantenouh to discuss in a draft paper, +hich +ill ma'e it harder to et the paper published/%nstead, she and Deborah should use their professional 4udment to drop the points no+/

  • 7/25/2019 RCR Presentation Revised

    10/30

    The Treatment of DataCase Study Questions

    TRUE or FALSE1Kamala is 4ustified in +antin to drop the t+o datapoints under these circumstances/

    FALSE/%n the absence of criteria for identif&in outliers at the beinnin ofthe stud& it is inappropriate to drop data points to impro6e the results/ %f

    those manipulated results +ere published the& +ould affect the researchrecord and if incorrect, impede the proress of science/

    TRUE or FALSE1%f the data points are dropped o6er Deborah3s ob4ectionsand she is an author on the resultin paper, she still shares responsibilit& forthe data alteration/

    TRUE/Each author is responsible for the entire publication/ %ncreasinl&,ho+e6er, publications re*uire information about each author3s contribution/=ith comple- multidisciplinar& studies, the responsibilit& for the paper3sinterit& ma& be split amon disciplines/ %n such a case, each author orroup of authors are responsible for data from their contributed portion of apublication/

  • 7/25/2019 RCR Presentation Revised

    11/30

    Mista'es and Nelience $$ Case Study

    T+o &oun facult& members>Marie, an epidemioloist in the medicalschool, and ?uan, a statistician in the mathematics department>ha6epublished t+o +ell$recei6ed papers about the spread of infections inpopulations/ As ?uan is +or'in on the simulation he has created tomodel infections, he reali"es that a codin error has led to incorrectresults that +ere published in the t+o papers/ (e sees, +ith reat

    relief, that correctin the error does not chane the a6erae time itta'es for an infection to spread/ 7ut the correct model e-hibits reateruncertaint& in its results, ma'in predictions about the spread of aninfection less definite/

    =hen he discusses the problem +ith Marie, she arues aainst sendin

    corrections to the 4ournals +here the t+o earlier articles +erepublished/ :7oth papers +ill be seen as suspect if +e do that, and thechanes don3t affect the main conclusions in the papers an&+a&,< shesa&s/ Their ne-t paper +ill contain results based on the correctedmodel, and ?uan can post the corrected model on his =eb pae/

  • 7/25/2019 RCR Presentation Revised

    12/30

    Mista'es and NelienceCase Study Questions

    TRUE or FALSE17ecause correctin the error in the earlier model did not chanethe interpretation of data in the t+o published manuscripts, the authors are under noobliation to correct the published record/

    FALSE/Researchers are obliated to be as accurate as possible in the conduct oftheir research, includin anal&sis of their data, in order not to mislead subse*uent

    researchers and those +ho +ill use the research/ Therefore, it +ould be nelient ofthe authors not to correct the published record/ The& should send a corriendumnote e-plainin an author3s error. to the editors of the 4ournals of the pre6iousl&published papers containin the erroneous model/

    TRUE or FALSE1%n correctin the model of infections, ?uan must 'eep a record ofall references to the codin error in the oriinal model/

    TRUE/To fulfill &our responsibilit& to maintain the interit& of the research record,:@mista'es in other documents that are part of the scientific record 2 includinresearch proposals, laborator& records, proress reports, abstracts, theses, and internalreports 2 should be corrected in a +a&