Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Responsible Conduct in Research — Standards and
Expectations for Ethical Conduct
Angela LumpkinUniversity of Kansas
Purpose of this Segment of SessionDescribe the importance and
content of responsible conduct of research with an emphasis on research ethics, research integrity, and ethical decision-making in research.
Describe the federal definition of research misconduct, provide other examples of research misconduct, and explain the process for dealing with research misconduct.
Responsible Conduct in Research*Responsible conduct in research is good
citizenship applied to professional life. That is, researchers who report their work honestly, accurately, efficiently, and objectively are demonstrating responsible conduct in research.
Responsible conduct in research is a combination of research integrity and research ethics.
*Steneck, 2007
Research integrity is “the quality of possessing and steadfastly adhering to high moral principles and professional standards, as outlined by professional organizations, research institutions and, when relevant, the government and public.”*
This is research behavior viewed from the perspective of professional standards.
Research ethics is “the critical study of the moral problems associated with or that arise in the course of pursuing research.”*
This is research behavior viewed from the perspective of moral principles.
*Steneck, 2006, pp. 55-56
Characteristics of Research Integrity and Research Ethics*
HonestyAccuracyEfficiencyObjectivityIntegrityCarefulnessOpennessConfidentialit
yRespect for
colleagues
Respect for intellectual property
Social responsibilityCompetenceEquality of
opportunity LegalityAnimal careHuman subjects
protection
*Shamoo & Resnik, 2003; Steneck, 2007
Codes of Ethics NASPE Code of Ethics for
Professionals in Higher Education http://www.aahperd.org/naspe/standards/upload/Code-of-Ethics-for-Professionals-in-Higher-Ed-final-10-29-09-2.pdf
Research Consortium Code of Ethics http://www.aahperd.org/rc/about/codeofethics.cfm
Core Instructional Areas in the Responsible Conduct of Research*
1. Acquisition, management, sharing, and ownership of data
2. Conflict of interest and commitment3. Research misconduct (fabrication; falsification;
plagiarism)4. Publication practices and responsible
authorship5. Mentor/mentee responsibilities6. Peer review7. Collaborative scholarship8. Human subjects9. Animal subjects *U.S. Office of Research
Integrity
Three-Part Framework for Moral Reasoning*
1. Identify the ethical issues, problems, or questions in the situation.
2. Determine the ethical principles or standards that will be used in the ethical analysis and decision-making process.
3. Follow a seven-step procedure for ethical decision-making.
*Elliott & Stern, 1997
Seven-Step Procedure for Ethical Decision Making*
1. Identify and define the ethical issues.2. Determine the key facts involved in the
situation and what, if any, additional information is needed.
3. Recognize the affected parties.4. Formulate alternative courses of action
that could be taken based on the facts.5. Evaluate the alternatives.6. Construct possible options and select
the best option.7. Take action.
*Elliott & Stern, 1997
Responsibilities in Ethical Decision-Making in Research*
To the research: data management, publication, conflicts of interest, and research misconduct and whistleblowing.
To the subjects: human and animal.To other researchers: mentoring,
collaborations and authorship, and peer review.
To the institution: fiscal management.To society: social responsibility.To the environment: environmental health
and safety.To self: balance of work and personal life. *Kalichman, 2002
Framework of Responsible Conduct of Research*Is it true? Truth prevents falsification,
fabrication, and unintentional bias by ensuring scientific integrity.
Is it fair? Fairness deals with the relationship among researchers, between researchers and subjects, and to sponsoring entities.
Is it wise? Wisdom requires social responsibility and the proper relationship between research and the common good.
Researchers who act ethically and responsibly are not just following the rules, they are demonstrating a greater sense of morality. *Pimple, 2002
Dimensions of Research Misconduct*
Research misconduct is the intentional fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.
http://ori.hhs.gov/policies/fed_research_misconduct.shtml
FabricationMaking up data or results and recording or
reporting them.Examples
Reporting results of research not yet performed as evidence in support of proposals for grant funding.
Omission of data or reporting positive, but not negative, outcomes.
FalsificationManipulating research materials, equipment, or
processes, or changing or omitting data or results so the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
ExamplesClaiming a large data set when none exists.Recording data incorrectly.Changing data to support hypotheses. Suppression of or non-publication of data
with the intent to deceive, thus misrepresenting interventions.
PlagiarismThe appropriation of another person’s ideas,
processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
ExamplesTaking credit for someone else’s work.Publishing multiple versions of the same
work or results.Failing to acknowledge all contributors as
authors.Giving attribution to authors who did not
contribute.
Research Misconduct Must Include* Departs
significantly from accepted practices.
Is committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.
Has been proven by a preponderance of evidence.
*Steneck, 2007
2011 Office of Research Integrity Case Summary: Bhrigu, VipulCase Summary: Bois, Philippe Case Summary: Goodwill, MeleikCase Summary: Jagannathan, Jayant Case Summary: Jamieson, Jennifer Case Summary: Lushington, Gerald Case Summary: Marija ManojlovicCase Summary: Sanyal, ShamarendraCase Summary: Shin, JungheeCase Summary: Solomon, NicolaCase Summary: Visvanathan, Mahesh Case Summary: Wang, Sheng Case Summary: Weber, Scott
Scandalous Science: Scientists Cheating on Data
Examples of Questionable Research Practices*Changing the order of authors to
indicate undeserved credit.Listing unaccepted papers as “in
press.” Including bogus publications on one’s
vitae.Receiving or giving honorary or ghost
authorship. Publishing the same information more
than once. Publishing the results of one
experiment in several publications (i.e., salami slicing) *Steneck, 2006
Examples of Questionable Research Practices*
Making errors in citations.Making errors in quotations.Failing to provide enough information in
the methods to allow for replication or evaluation.
Using improper statistics and data analyses.
Failing to reveal a conflict of interest.Presenting evidence for other than
scholarly or scientific reasons.Yielding to undue influence of the
funding agency.*Steneck, 2006
Top Ten Misbehaviors that Scientists Engage in*
1. “Falsifying or ‘cooking’ research data.2. Ignoring major aspects of human-subject
requirements.3. Not properly disclosing involvement in
firms whose products are based on one’s own research.
4. Relationships with students, research subjects or clients that may be interpreted as questionable.
5. Using another’s ideas without obtaining permission or giving due credit.
*Martinson, Anderson, & deVries, 2005, p. 737
Top Ten Misbehaviors that Scientists Engage in*6. Unauthorized use of confidential
information in connection with one’s own research.
7. Failing to present data that contradict one’s own previous research.
8. Circumventing certain minor aspects of human-subject requirements.
9. Overlooking others’ use of flawed data or questionable interpretation of data.
10.Changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from a funding source.”
*33% of respondents had engaged in at least 1 of the top 10 misbehaviors in past three years.
Unethical Conduct or Misrepresentation in Scientific and Technical Publishing*
By authorsFalsifying data or artifacts that do not exist.Forging documents or objects.Misrepresenting or distorting data or
evidence.Failing to make proper attribution for
another’s ideas or text (plagiarism).Misrepresenting authorship through
providing or withholding credit without merit. Misrepresenting the publication status on
one’s work. *Lafollette, 1992
Unethical Conduct or Misrepresentation in Scientific and Technical Publishing*
By refereesMisrepresenting facts in a review.Delaying a review to achieve personal gain.Stealing ideas or text during the review process. By editors or editorial advisors or staffFabricating a referee’s report.Failing to honestly communicate with an author about the review process. Stealing ideas or text during the review process. *Lafollette, 1992
Van Noorden, 2011
Possible Causes of MisconductPressure to gain promotion and tenure.Pressure for professional advancement.Ease of intentionally reporting inaccurate,
incomplete, or more positive results.Failure to engage in rigorous academic
research.Rationalization that everyone else does it.Belief that no one will ever find out about it.Claim that an unintentional or careless error
was made rather than misconduct.
What If You Think Research Misconduct Has Occurred
Accept personal responsibility.
Report concerns through the appropriate institutional process.
Ensure confidentiality to protect the person who raised a concern.
Investigating Reports of Research Misconduct*Designated individual receives an allegation
of misconduct.Inquiry process assesses whether the
allegation has merit.Formal investigative process determines the
facts and truth regarding the allegation.Adjudication process weighs the evidence
and draws conclusions. Implementation of sanctions for misconduct
or vindication of the person falsely charged.The findings are reported appropriately.
*Steneck, 2007
When Misconduct Has Been Confirmed
Retraction of any fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized research.
Loss of job.Salary reduction.Stripping of rank.Ineligibility for funding.Repayment of funding.Professional image tarnished.Public statement of apology.
Impact of Research Misconduct*
Makes research findings unreliable.
Weakens trust among colleagues.
Undermines the public’s trust in researchers.
Wastes research funds.
Too often, research is not conducted in conformity with the highest ethical and intellectual standards.
*Steneck, 2006
Concluding CommentsResearch integrity and research ethics
characterize responsible conduct of research.Responsible conduct applies to all aspects of
research. Researchers must strictly conform to federal,
institutional, and professional requirements. Every researcher must accept responsibility to
call to the attention of appropriate individuals any concerns about possible research misconduct.
Engaging in research misconduct has and should have serious consequences.
References Elliott, D., & Stern, J. E. (1997). Research ethics: A
reader. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England for the Institute for the Study of Applied and Professional Ethics at Dartmouth College.
Kalichman, M. (2002). Ethical decision-making in research: Identifying all competing interests. Commentary on “Six domains of research ethics.” Science and Engineering Ethics, 8, 215-218.
LaFollette, M. C. (1992). Stealing into print: Fraud, plagiarism, and misconduct in scientific publishing. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & deVries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435, 737-738.
References Peake, D. (2010). Scandalous science: Scientists
cheating on data. Chicago, IL: Medill Reports. Retrieved from http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=157268
Pimple, K. D. (2002). Six domains of research ethics: A heuristic framework for the responsible conduct of research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8, 191-205.
Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2003). Responsible conduct of research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Steneck, N. H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 53-74.
References Steneck, N. H. (2007). ORI Introduction to the
responsible conduct of research. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
United States Office of Research Integrity. Retrieved from http://ori.hhs.gov/
Van Noorden, R. (2011). Science publishing: The trouble with retractions. Nature, 478, 26-28.
