mnses research ethics misconduct 2019 · gherudk rxjkwrq#qpex qr. 5(6($5&+ (7+,&6 016(6...

$: MNSES Research Ethics Misconduct 2019 · gherudk rxjkwrq#qpex qr. 5(6($5&+ (7+,&6 016(6 'herudk 2xjkwrq 5hvhdufk (wklfv 7kuhh duhdv ri uhvsrqvlelolw\ 6flhqwlilf frppxqlw\ uhvhdufk$
Norwegian University of Life SciencesTpublication and Authorship 1

RESEARCH ETHICS –Fraud and Misconduct

MNSES9100

[email protected]

RESEARCH ETHICS MNSES9100 Deborah Oughton

2

Research Ethics: Three areas of responsibility

• Scientific community: research norms, misconduct, publication

• Research subjects: humans, animals

• Society: the public, environment, patents, technological risk

Misconduct concerns

STAP (Stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency) –Nature, Japan

Photo, Haruko Obokata


4

Misconduct and Fraud in Norway

• Jon Sudbø–Paper published in the Lancet

October 2005 - Sudbø admitted fabrication of data January 2006

–Independent commissionappointed January 2006 to investigate all papers, including PhD and co-authors(60)

–Now working as assistantdentist in Seljord


11 mistenkt for juks

SKUFFET: Dekan Finn Georg B. Wisløff tar mistanken om eksamensfusk blant doktorgradsstipendiatene alvorlig. OTO: Brian Olguin

7

• Ethics – The philosophical study of right and wrong conduct and the

rules and principles that ought to guide it (“the oughts and the shoulds”).

• Scientific Research – The conduct of scientists

Ethics of Scientific Research


Research Fraud and Misconduct

• What is research fraud?

• Why does it happen?

• How often does it happen?

• How is it controlled?

9

Dutch psychologistDiederik Stapel www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/13/scientific-research-fraud-bad-practice

Pablo Macchiarini, Karolinska


10

The Patchwork Mouse (1974)

• William T. Summerlin• Chief of transplantation immunology at

Sloan-Kettering• Claimed he could transplant onto

animals corneas, glands, and skin that would normally be rejected —sometimes even across species.

• The fraud discovered after three years when a lab assistant noticed that the black “skin graphs” were drawn on with a marker.

“my error was not in knowingly promulgating false data, but rather in succumbing

to extreme pressure placed on me by the institute director to publish information".

PublicationPressure


11

Famous Frauds in Science

• The Piltdown Man (1908-12)

The Hoax


Hoax papers

12RESEARCH ETHICS MNSES9100 Deborah Oughton

14


• Cyril Burt (twin study 1943)

• IQ studies on identical twins

• Posthumously accused of fraudand fabrication

Cyril Burt 1881-1971I know I am right


RESEACH ETHICS MNSES9100 Deborah Oughton15


• Hwang Woo-Suk (embryonicstem cells and cloning)

I want fame and fortune

Scientific Fraud and Misconduct

Scientific misconduct is defined as ‘behavior by a researcher, intentional or not, that falls short of good ethical and scientific standards’

Fraud “deliberate intention to mislead”

18

NENT: Den nasjonale forskningsetiske komité for naturvitenskap og teknologi www.etikkom.noLov om organisering av forskningsetisk arbeid (forskningsetikkloven)(www.lovdata.no)


19

Scientific Fraud and Misconduct 1. Fabrication and construction of data (forgery)2. Data manipulation (selection, substitution, misleading

statistical methods)3. Deliberate distortion of results or conclusions4. Plagiarism of results, publications or ideas5. Proposal applications containing incorrect information6. Inappropriate author credit (omission or honorary

author credit) 7. Negligent filing and storage of data



When are deviations from «The Scientific Method» problematic?


• Because they don’t follow established norms?

• When they are ethically questionable?

#overlyhonestmethods

RESEACH ETHICS MNSES9100 Deborah Oughton

A modified protocol was implemented because a certain graduate student seems unable to follow simple instructions. #overlyhonestmethods

We didn’t show the structure because we forgot to patent it so only three people actually know what it is. #overlyhonestmethods


Error bars represent SEM rather than 2SD as it looks significant that way. #overlyhonestmethods

"Experiment was repeated until we had three statistically significant similar results and could discard the outliers" #overlyhonestmethods


24

1. Quick round of introduction: name + area of research

2. Elect a group reporter

3. Discussion

• When might #overlyhonestmethods represent deviations from good practice or ethically questionable actions, or undermine the integrity of science?

• Do you have your own suggestions for #overlyhonestmethods?

• What other examples can you think of for grey areas of “questionable research practice”

Group Discussion – The «Scientific Method» -Is honesty the best policy?


Group Discussion 1415-1500

• Group 1: Fysik Ø397• Group 2: HE 232• Group 3: HE 494• Group 4: Aud 2 Front• Group 5: Aud 2 Back• Group 6: HE Canteen

Feedback Session 1515 HE Aud 2



28

Scientific Fraud and Misconduct

1. Fabrication and construction of data (forgery)2. Data manipulation (selection, substitution, misleading

statistical methods)3. Deliberate distortion of results or conclusions4. Plagiarism of results, publications or ideas5. Proposal applications containing incorrect information6. Inappropriate author credit (omission or honorary

author credit) 7. Negligent filing and storage of data



Trimming the data ?

• Milikan’s Oil Drop Experiment (1916)

• Gregor Mendel (1866)

More onWednesday

Norwegian University of Life SciencesTittel på presentasjon 32

HTTPS://XKCD.COM/2048/IMAGE URL (FOR

HOTLINKING/EMBEDDING): HTTPS://IMGS.XKCD.COM/COMIC

S/CURVE_FITTING.PNG

Plagarism

• Plagiarism of publications (in whole or in part) is frequently defined as “the wrongful appropriation, closeimitation, or purloining and publication, of anotherauthor’s language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions, and the representation of them as one’s own original work”.

Norwegian University of Life SciencesPublication and Authorshio –Deborah.Oughton@nmbu,ni

33


Famous Plagiarists

• Vijay Soman, an assistant professor at Yale, was asked by his boss Philip Felig to peer review a paper by Helena Wachslicht-Rodbard. Felig and Soman sent back a negative review, delaying publication, then Soman turned around and submitted virtually the same paper to another journal.

• Guess who got the paper to review?


Case study: “The Baltimore Affair”

A case of data manipulation and fraud accusations between scientists that shocked America; damaged the reputation of a Nobel prize-winner and the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT); and sparked a governmental level investigation.

Daniel Kevles. 1998. The Baltimore Case: A Trial of Politics, Science and Character

RESEACH ETHICS MNSES9100 Deborah Oughton 36

The Players

• Prof. David Baltimore: Nobel Prize winner (1975). Director of the Biomedical Research Institute at MIT.

• Dr Thereza Imanishi-Kari: colleague and co-author.• Dr. Margaret O’Toole: “Whistle-Blower” .• Walter Steward & Ned Feder: NIH “Science Police”• US Rep. John Dingell: Congress representative.

37

The Plot

• April 1986: Joint paper published in “Cell”• 1986: O’Toole challenged data• 1987: 2 inquiries (MIT and Tufts Univ.)• 1988: Congress investigation started. Baltimore defended the

paper and appealed to scientists to help fight this “threat to scientific communication and freedom”. O’Toole loses her job

• April 1991: Report published to mass media coverage: found evidence of serious misconduct, data fabrication and heavily criticised Baltimore’s conduct.

• Dec. 1991: Baltimore resigned as President of Rockefeller University



Aftermath

• Baltimore and Imanshi-Kari cleared in 1996 (not fraud but sloppy science and bad practice)

• Both still working as scientists• Repercussions in ”interference” of

government in research• Disquiet about the role of industry funding

and whether it promotes fraud and bias• What is fraud; what is personal conflict;

what is scientific disagreement?

«It’s hard to tell the jerks from the cheats» Head of the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty, 2003

- Demarcation of science from pseudoscience

- Publication and Authorship (Vancouver Recommendations)

Thursday 7th

Recommended Literature: Feyerabend paper

Tuesday 5th

mnses research ethics misconduct 2019 · gherudk rxjkwrq#qpex qr. 5(6($5&+ (7+,&6 016(6...

Documents