The good, the bad and the unethical: conduct

and misconduct in research

Professor Alan Kelly

School of Food and Nutritional Sciencesa.kelly@ucc.ie

What does ethics in research involve?

• Certain fields have strict ethical practices and standards (e.g., medicine, research with animals, children)

• All fields have expectations of professional conduct, honesty and behaviour

• Common issues for research students – authorship, publication

• High expectations and stiff punishments• Are researchers not always honest?• Why would they be dishonest?

Where might issues of misconduct and honesty arise in research?

• Reporting results of research- fabrication, falsification, plagiarism (FFP)- secrecy or lack of transparency- assigning authorship and credit

• Supervisor-student relationships• Interacting with peers and colleagues• Knowledge of the behaviour of others• Acknowledging the work of others• Designing studies and applying for funding• Maintaining records of research• Use of copyright• Declaring conflicts of interest • Political or other pressures• Reviewing the work of others

Idea

Studies

Communication through

publication

Success?

Addition to knowledgeRecognitionMore ideas!

• If research is an industry, publications are its products

• Publishing is good for research and good for researchers

• Multiple motivations for publishing- self-less (for the field)- selfish (for your career)

• Core principles:ClarityFairnessQuality above allHonesty

How research works

Good research practice

Questionable Research Practice

Research misconduct• Falsification• Fabrication• Plagiarism• Financial fraud

• Data omission• Budgetary mismanagement• Information concealment• Competitiveness

• Honesty and openness• Fair dealings with others• Criticism wisely used• No conflicts of interest

Why would researchers be dishonest?

o Reputation is keyo Quality of reputation depends heavily on publications

(quality more than quantity)o Jobs and success (sometimes money) depend on

research productivityo Some try to take short-cutso Reasons: gain, advancement, personal reward,

insecurity, wish to impress, reluctance to admit failureo Also, credit is keyo Authorship of papers very important: no honorary or

ghost authorso Researchers must be open, especially regarding

conflicts of interest

What is plagiarism?

Wilfull, or unintentional, use of another persons (or your own) ideas, results, methods, images or concepts without giving the proper credit

Researchers must beware of plagiarism in writing:• Always acknowledge sources• Check best acknowledgement for figures, tables etc.

(adapted from, reprinted from) • Check how to seek proper permission to use another’s

material • Be open and honest in your thesis• Now easier than ever to detect• Journals and examiners very vigilant• Avoid self-plagiarism

Fabrication and falsification

• First classified by Charles Babbage 150 years ago

• Falsification – changing/trimming/selecting data in a questionable or less than transparent manner

• Can be hard to define precisely but key is to be open and honest regarding decisions made

• Fabrication – making up data which have no basis in reality

• Many cases unfortunately exist:Piltdown manKorean stem cellsHendrik Schon

Authorship credit should be based on

1)substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data;

2)drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content;

3)final approval of the version to be published.

Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, and 3.

When a large, multi-center group has conducted the work, the group should identify the individuals who accept direct responsibility for the manuscript. These individuals should fully meet the criteria for authorship/contributorship defined above and editors will ask these individuals to complete journal-specific author and conflict of interest disclosure forms.

Authorship of papers: a key ethical minefieldThe Vancouver protocols on authorship of papers in medical journals

(International Journal of Medical Council Editors)

Ethics and acknowledgements

1998: paper published (Wakefield et al.) suggests link between autism and use of MMR vaccine (specifically measles virus)

- Study of 12 children, suggested “possible relation” in 8 cases- Wakefield suggests in press conference to launch paper that separate

vaccines may be safer- Media pick up and publicise widely- Use of MMR vaccine falls as a result (parental decisions)- in UK, Blair advises parents to keep vaccinating- outbreaks of measles and mumps in Europe follow

2002: UK and US papers published that find no link between MMR and autism

2003: One author writes letter to Lancet suggesting paper was wrong: attacked by Wakefield as being pressured to do so

Main author had received £50,000 research grant from lawyers trying to establish if parents of autistic children could sue vaccine manufacturers – not declared in acknowledgements

2004: 10 out of 13 original paper’s (two refused) authors retract their findings – state that data presented do not support conclusion that has been drawn

Your online textbook

How things get fixed

The sharp end of the stick: misconduct and you!

o Read the guide and the codeo Get ethical approval for the work you do

where neededo Dealings with otherso Knowledge of otherso Take responsibility yourselfo Maintaining and reporting your worko Understand plagiarism o No professional assistance with your thesiso Declare all contributions to your thesiso Module to be offered 2013/14

Conclusion: misconduct and research

The academic literature is fundamentally self-correcting – great strength

However, misconduct is a hugely serious issue because….

• Wastes others’ time• Wastes money (grant and experimental)• Undermines public confidence• Undermines official confidence• Undermines morale• Leads to tighter scrutiny• Will get research students into serious trouble