RCR Presentation Revised

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)

Text of RCR Presentation Revised

  • 7/25/2019 RCR Presentation Revised


    RCRResponsible Conduct of


  • 7/25/2019 RCR Presentation Revised


    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


    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


    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


    Researchers3 !bliations 5



    To honor the trust that their colleaues place in them

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


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

    Mentorin Society: Research #ocus, Public Understandin, Public


  • 7/25/2019 RCR Presentation Revised


    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


    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


  • 7/25/2019 RCR Presentation Revised


    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


    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


    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


    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


    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&