EMPHNET Ethical issues in Public Health research integrity and publication ethics Ghaiath M. A. Hussein MBBS, MHSc. (Bioethics), PhD Researcher Email : [email protected] Regency Hotel, Amman, Jordan 15-19 June, 2014
Nov 29, 2014
EMPHNET
Ethical issues in Public Health research integrity and publication ethics
Ghaiath M. A. HusseinMBBS, MHSc. (Bioethics), PhD Researcher
Email :.ghaiathme@gmail com
Regency Hotel, Amman, Jordan15-19 June, 2014
Outline
• Scientific misconduct: definition and types• Examples of scientific misconducts• Investigation of misconduct allegations• Approaches to improve scientific integrity
Definitions of Scientific Misconduct
• “Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting results” (US HHS, 2000, & 42 CFR Part 93.)
• “ [includes] piracy (the deliberate exploitation of ideas from others without acknowledgement, plagiarism (the copying of ideas, data or text (or various combinations of the three) without permission or acknowledgement), and fraud (deliberate deception, usually the invention of data).” (Royal College of Physicians, 1991)
• “Intention or gross negligence leading to falsification of the scientific message or a false credit or emphasis given to a scientist.” (Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty, 1992)
Definition of Scientific Misconduct (2)
• UK Medical Research Council 1997• “…means fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or deception in
proposing, carrying out or reporting results of research and deliberate, dangerous or negligent deviations from accepted practices in carrying out research.
• It includes failure to follow established protocols if this failure results in unreasonable risk or harm to humans, […] and facilitating of misconduct in research by collusion in, or concealment of, such actions by others.
• It does not include honest error or honest differences in the design, execution, interpretation or judgement in evaluating research methods or results or misconduct (including gross misconduct) unrelated to the research process.”
Types of research misconduct (Adapted from: Committee on Publication Ethics. The COPE Report, 2000. 2000. & Research Misconduct, F.J. Gilberta and A.R. Denison, 2002)
• Fabrication• Falsification• Plagiarism• Failure to get ethical approval• Not admitting that some data are missing• Ignoring outliers without declaring it• Not including data on side effects in a clinical trial• Conducting research on humans without informed consent• Publication of post hoc analyses without declaring it
Types of research misconduct (2)(Adapted from: Committee on Publication Ethics. The COPE Report, 2000. 2000. and Research Misconduct, F.J. Gilberta and A.R. Denison, 2002)
• Gift authorship• Not attributing other authors• Redundant publication• Not disclosing a conflict of interest• Not attempting to publish completed research• Failure to do an adequate search of existing research before
beginning new research
Types of research misconduct (2)(Adapted from: Committee on Publication Ethics. The COPE Report, 2000. 2000. and Research Misconduct, F.J. Gilberta and A.R. Denison, 2002)
• Gift authorship• Not attributing other authors• Redundant publication: “Shotgunning” & “Salami-slicing”
• Not disclosing a conflict of interest• Not attempting to publish completed research• Failure to do an adequate search of existing research before
beginning new research
Basic definitionsResponsible Conduct of Research (RCR): “… conducting research in ways that fulfill the professional responsibilities of researchers, as defined by their professional organizations, the institutions for which they work and, when relevant, the government and public.” (Steneck, Science and Engineering Ethics (2006) 12, 53-74 )
• Fabrication: is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
• Falsification: is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
• Plagiarism: is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results or words without giving appropriate credit.
(Adapted from: Research misconduct: the poisoning of the well, Richard Smith, J R Soc Med May 2006 vol. 99 no. 5232-237)
Basic definitions(Adapted from: Research misconduct: the poisoning of the well, Richard Smith, J R Soc
Med May 2006 vol. 99 no. 5232-237, and http://grants.nih.gov/grants/research_integrity/research_misconduct.htm
• Fabrication: is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.– Example: In order to meet recruitment pressure and expectations, a study
coordinator completed trial enrollment forms using faked names and participants' information.
– Eric Poehlman made up patients' data that never existed to support his scientific claims.
• Falsification: is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.– Example: 'splicing and pasting' together different segments of western blot
images so that the final image presented appeared to have come from a single western blot procedure.
– Harvard investigator Marc Hauser was found to have fabricated and manipulated research results.
Plagiarism (Pearson Prentice Hall, understanding Plagiarism, URL:
http://wps.prenhall.com/hss_understand_plagiarism_1/6/1668/427065.cw/index.html)
• Plagiarism: is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results or words without giving appropriate credit.
• Some obvious examples:– copying someone else's paper.– taking short or long quotations from a source without identifying the source.– turning in a paper you bought over the Internet.
• Some less-obvious examples :• changing a few words around and pretending those words are your own.• rearranging the order of ideas in a list and making the reader think you produced
the list.• borrowing ideas from a source and not giving proper credit to the source.• using information from an interview or an online chat or email, etc., without
properly citing the source of the information.
Infamous cases of scientific misconduct (1)
• Diederik Stapel, a leading Dutch social psychologist was found to have:
• fabricated or manipulated information in dozens of research papers over almost a decade,
• “several dozens of publications” in which false information was used.
• 14/21 PhD theses Stapel supervised are also marred • Many of his students graduated without ever running an
experiment, according to the report. • Stapel told them that they were better off spending their time
researching and analysing data.
Infamous cases of scientific misconduct (2)
• 1999-2002: He claimed to have cloned a cow & a pig• 2004: claimed cloning the first human embryos and
to have extracted stem cells from them.
• 2006: he was charged him with: – Embezzling US$3 million, – Committing fraud by knowingly using fabricated
data to apply for research funds– Violating a bioethics law that outlaws the
purchase of eggs for research
He lost his licence to conduct embryonic stem-cell research and was fired by the university
Infamous cases of scientific misconduct (3)
• Thiruchelvam, a former assistant professor fabricated stereological cell count data in two studies on how pesticides influence neuronal mechanisms involved in Parkinson’s disease (PD).
• The studies reported the results of 13 new experiments that were never taken.
• The papers slated for retraction• The false data were used to create
several summary bar graphs, which Thiruchelvam modified to support the hypothesis
Other Infamous cases of scientific misconduct
• Toad--Paul Kammerer, called the next Darwin, unveiled in the 1920’s an amazing discovery that the offspring of Midwife Toads inherited black spots. A closer examination revealed the spots were, in fact, hand painted with black ink.
• Autism Vaccines--Andrew Wakefield published "results" from a study of 12 children that appeared to link autism with vaccines. In 2011 the British Medical Journal declared the study not a case of bad science, but of outright fraud.
• Obesity -- Eric Poehlman, a researcher with $2.9 million of US federal grant money, was convicted in 2005 of falsifying data in various studies on obesity. Having “violated the public trust”, he was sentenced to jail--the first for a US scientist for lying on a grant application.
Two key issues for discussion Why does research misconduct happen?
How to manage Research misconduct?
References
• Committee on Publication Ethics. The COPE Report, 2000. 2000.
• Research Misconduct, F.J. Gilberta and A.R. Denison, 2002• Steneck, Science and Engineering Ethics (2006) 12, 53-74• Research misconduct: the poisoning of the well, Richard
Smith, J R Soc Med May 2006 vol. 99 no. 5232-237• Pearson Prentice Hall, understanding Plagiarism, URL:
http://wps.prenhall.com/hss_understand_plagiarism_1/6/1668/427065.cw/index.html