Academic Honesty: Day 2

I will consider the importance of academic honesty

I will be able to avoid plagiarism by accurately

paraphrasing, quoting and citing sources

I will be able to state the consequences of plagiarism for

this course

I will be able to state and explain several types of

scientific misconduct

I will consider the possible effects of scientific misconduct

Plagiarism And How to Avoid It by David Gardner http://ec.hku.hk/plagiarism/introduction.htm

Instructions: Read the information under “Introduction” and “Techniques”. Complete the “Self-Test” according to the directions on the Self-Test page. You

may complete this on your own or with a partner. Submit your answers by pressing the “submit and get teacher response” button,

and compare your answer with the webpage author’s.

Paraphrasing Exercise

Read the following definition and try to paraphrase each paragraph. Write down your paraphrases as though you were going to use them to write a report for class.

Discuss and compare your answers with a couple of classmates.

Paraphrasing Exercise

Testing theories via the Scientific Method

Formal measures of integrity rely on a set of testing principles known as the Scientific Method. To the extent that a proof follows the requirements of the method, scholars consider that proof scientific. The Scientific Method includes measures to ensure unbiased testing and a requirement that the hypothesis have falsifiability.

One tests the integrity of a value system scientifically by using the values, methods and measures of the system to formulate a hypothesis of an expected cause-and-effect relationship. When the effect predicted by a value system according to its methods and measures is observed by multiple unbiased testers, the value system is said to have integrity.

For example, Newtonian physics, general relativity and quantum mechanics are three distinct systems, each scientifically proven to have integrity according to their base assumptions and measures. None of them claim to be absolute truth. Scientific testing is not useful for identifying "absolute truth" because scientific tests assume principles, values, methods and measures outside of the scope of the test. Rather, the Scientific Method is used to proof the integrity of a value system and to establish its conclusions as consistent with the assumptions used, thereby enabling further extrapolation within that domain.

Wikipedia. “Integrity”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity, accessed July 24th, 2009.

Scientific Misconduct definition

Falsification of Data: Includes obfuscation, fabrication, “massaging” of

data, selective reporting of data, altering of image data, plagiarism of self or others, etc.

Mistreatment of human subjects Failure to follow editorial procedures

Reproducibility of results and methods Conflicts of interest Authorship lists

Scientific Misconduct

Why might a scientist commit misconduct?

Discuss with a partner and come up with at least three reasons.

Examples of Scientific Misconduct

Hwang Woo Suk, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea, 2005

Science magazine articles “Patient-Specific Embryonic Stem Cells Derived from Human SCNT Blastocysts” and “Evidence of a Pluripotent Human Embryonic Stem Cell Line Derived from a Cloned Blastocyst”

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/312/5773/516.pdf (1st two paragraphs)

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/311/5768/1695b.pdf

Robert Millikan – deliberate omission of data in his oil-drop experiment

There is some controversy over the use of selectivity in Millikan's results of his second experiment measuring the electron charge. This work was done by Allan Franklin, a former high energy experimentalist and current philosopher of science at the University of Colorado. Franklin contends that, while Millikan's exclusions of data do not affect the final value of e that he obtained, there was substantial "cosmetic surgery" that Millikan performed which had the effect of reducing the statistical error on e. This enabled Millikan to quote the figure that he had calculated e to better than one half of one percent; in fact, if Millikan had included all of the data he threw out, it would have been to within 2%. While this would still have resulted in Millikan having measured e better than anyone else at the time, the slightly larger uncertainty might have allowed more disagreement with his results within the physics community, which Millikan likely tried to avoid.

NationMaster.com. “Encyclopedia>Robert Millikan”. http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Robert-Millikan. First accessed September 15, 2009.

Victor Ninov – retraction of claim to have discovered element 118 http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/15/science/physical/15ELEM.html

Summary Assignment

Read the following article regarding a certain case of scientific misconduct.

Imagine you are a person affected by the scientist’s misconduct in some important way.

Write a letter to the editor of the newspaper describing your situation and what you think the consequences should be for the scientist. (250 word guideline)

If you are not sure what a letter to the editor should look like, here are some examples.

http://www.safekidscanada.ca/SKCPublicPolicyAdvocacy/custom/Sample_LettertotheEditor.pdf

http://www.marininstitute.org/take_action/alert_bud_sample_ltr.htm

http://hrlibrary.ngo.ru/edumat/hreduseries/hereandnow/Part-4/9_action-activity5-sample.htm

Article for response

Respond to this article with a letter to the editor: http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-retraction.htm

Another article for interest about this controversy: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/medical-journal-recants-1998-study-linking-autism-to-vaccine/article1453309/

Editorial on same issue: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-vaccine-autism-debate-should-end-now/article972665/

How will I be marked?

Your letter to the editor will be marked according to the rubric you will find here.

Bibliography

Wikipedia. “Scientific Misconduct”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct. First accessed July 24, 2009.

University of West Florida. “Scientific Misconduct”. http://uwf.edu/cstanny/website/webbasedtraining/ScientificMisconductOutline.htm, first accessed July 24, 2009.

“Welcome|Scientific Red Cards”. http://www.scientificredcards.org/ first accessed July 24, 2009. Wikipedia. “Integrity”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity, accessed July 24th, 2009. NationMaster.com. “Encyclopedia>Robert Millikan”. h

ttp://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Robert-Millikan. First accessed September 15, 2009. Johnson, George. The New York Times, Tuesday, October 15, 2002. http

://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/15/science/physical/15ELEM.html first accessed July 27, 2009. Safe Kids Canada.

http://www.safekidscanada.ca/SKCPublicPolicyAdvocacy/custom/Sample_LettertotheEditor.pdf First accessed September 15, 2009.

The Marin Institute 2006. http://www.marininstitute.org/take_action/alert_bud_sample_ltr.htm First accessed September 15, 2009.

Sample Letter to the Editor. http://hrlibrary.ngo.ru/edumat/hreduseries/hereandnow/Part-4/9_action-activity5-sample.htm First accessed September 15 2009.

I acknowledge that I also received help with medical language and ideas from Dr. James

Clarke.

The (fake) newspaper article – ignore this for Feb. 2010 class

by D. Repporteur

HALIFAX, N.S. – Pharmacological researcher Dr. I.M. Phony has been accused of scientific misconduct in a trial of a new drug for cancer treatment. Dr. Phony has been indefinitely suspended from Dalhousie University pending investigations of the claim, university officials said.

The research undertaken by Dr. Phony’s group was intended to test the drug Cheapomoxin, produced by BigMoney Pharmaceuticals, an international distributor of pharmocological products. In the article published in the Nova Scotia Journal of Cancer Therapy last month, Dr. Phony failed to disclose that the study had been funded almost entirely by a BigMoney subsidiary. In addition, Dr. Phony holds personally shares in BigMoney and failed to reveal this potential conflict of interest in the article. A research associate from Dr. Phony’s lab came forward to express concerns about the study’s funding and the doctor’s conduct.

“She bought a new car soon after meeting with the BigMoney executives, and then pushed the study through without due care and consideration for the scientific method,” said the aide, who wished to remain anonymous. “She also didn’t sufficiently discuss the side effects of Cheapomoxin. In the article, there was no mention of the incidences of tail growth, hand tremors or nausea that I heard about in the lab.”

Dr. Phony denies all allegations and has retained legal counsel.