PROFESSIONAL ETHICSAdapted from On Being a Scientist, 3rd Ed.

PSC 3001 – Introduction to Senior Projects in Science

On Being a Scientist, 3rd Edition

“The scientific enterprise is built on a foundation of trust.” On Being a Scientist provides an overview of the professional

standards of science

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12192

This book was prepared under the auspices of the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, which

is a joint committee of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the

Institute of Medicine.

Science is not easy!

“…the rewards of science are not easily achieved.” Scientific breakthroughs are elusive Researchers are often under pressure to produce results There are many difficult decisions to make:

Design of experiments Interpretation and presentation of results Interactions with colleagues Time and resource allocation Credit for scientific accomplishments Social and personal beliefs and values

Research Misconduct

What is research misconduct? The US government defines scientific misconduct as “fabrication,

falsification, or plagiarism (FFP) in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.”

It does not include honest errors (unless uncorrected), differences of opinion or interpretation, or authorship debates

The Misconduct Scale: Innocent Ignorance

Surprising Sloppiness

Malicious Malfeasance

Innocent Ignorance

Misconduct of the uninformed kind Noncompliance based on a true lack of understanding of the

regulatory consequences of an action

The act itself is usually intentional, but the noncompliance is unintentional

The act is not usually done to deliberately deceive

Examples: Backdating a signature on a consent form because a person

forgot to date the form originally Discarding source documents after accurate transcription and

reporting transcribed data as original

Surprising Sloppiness

Misconduct of the lazy kind Noncompliance due to inaction, inattention to detail,

inadequate staff, or a lack of supervision

The act itself may be intentional or unintentional

Noncompliance is unintentional and is usually repeated

Examples:

Consent forms inadvertently not obtained from test subjects

Data inaccurately transcribed or recorded

Data estimated rather than actually measured

Standard operating protocols ignored or shortcuts taken

Malicious Malfeasance

Misconduct of the sleazy kind Usually noncompliance due to deliberate action to deceive or

mislead

Includes Fabrication, Falsification, and/or Plagarism (FFP)

See Research Misconduct handout for definitions of FFP

Examples:

Creating data that was never obtained

Altering data that was obtained by substituting different data

Omitting data that was obtained that would usually be recorded

Misrepresenting data from another source as your own

Dealing with Scientific Misconduct

Prevention Identify and eliminate or minimize risk factors for misconduct

Detection Monitor and recognize signs of fraud

Correction Promptly investigate and report fraud

Have you recently heard of any cases of scientific misconduct in the

news?

A Breach of Trust

See story on page 16 of On Being a Scientist Jan Hendrik Schön, former physicist at Bell Laboratories

How would you classify this type of research misconduct?

Fabrication in a Grant Proposal

See case study on page 17 of On Being a Scientist Vijay and the “submitted” manuscript

1. Do you think that researchers often exaggerate the publication status of their work in written materials?

2. Do you think the department acted too harshly in dismissing Vijay from the graduate program?

3. If Vijay later applied to a graduate program at another institution, does that institution have the right to know what happened?

4. What were Vijay’s adviser’s responsibilities in reviewing the application before it was submitted?

Is It Plagiarism?

See case study on page 18 of On Being a Scientist Professor Lee and the grant proposal

1. Does the copying of a few isolated sentences in this case constitute plagiarism?

2. By citing the journal paper, has Lee given proper credit to the other author?

Research Misconduct in the News

Organometallics SI example from July 2013: