Professional Ethics part two Research Misconduct (Co) Authorship Grant Management Conflicts of Interest *with lots of help from Paul Kalas and Michael Meyer
Professional Ethics part two
Research Misconduct (Co-‐) Authorship
Grant Management Conflicts of Interest
*with lots of help from Paul Kalas and Michael Meyer
What does “professional ethics”mean?
• APS task force on ethics (Kate Kirby & Frances A. Houle, 2004):
– Truthful, careful handling and reporTng of data – Responsible, respecUul interacTons with colleagues and subordinates
– Adherence to publicaTon guidelines, including proper recogniTon of research contribuTons
Ethical Misconduct (Ethics in Engineering PracTce and Research by Caroline Whitbeck)
• 1998: Victor Ninov claimed the discovery of two new elements (“super-‐heavy” element called 118 and decay product 116)
• Ninov’s colleagues and coauthors le^ it to him alone to deal with the raw data – only he knew how to run the computer programs that analyzed the data
• Other invesTgators were not able to replicate the experimental results
• Officials at Lawrence Berkeley NaTonal Lab invesTgated in 2002
• Computer log file found with evidence that data had been cut and pasted and numeric values were changed
• Ninov was fired, coauthors reprimanded and news release made to withdraw the discovery
The Influence of ExpectaTons
On Being a ScienTst: Responsible Conduct in Research 2000, The NaTonal Academy of Sciences
APS task force on ethics: origin of research misconduct?
“By far the highest response rate and the most extensive and hearUelt answers .. came from the junior members of APS” EXCERPT QUOTES: • The only real answers to the ethics problem is for tenure review
boards to stop rewarding the Science/Nature culture above all else
• Out scienTfic community promotes the search of the surface and superficiality [to the] detriment of content and deepness
• Many breaches of ethics arise from the pressure to publish … • The researcher .. will be judged [by] the number of arTcles ..
appearing on the CV. He or she will not be judged [by] the work spent on each paper, how many backup checks were performed to confirm the results and so on. … for many people it is more important to publish spectacular results than to publish true results
ResponsibiliTes as a Co-‐author
• Research Misconduct (APS Task Force on Ethics) : – must every coauthor in an interdisciplinary collaboraTon understand and vouch for every detail of the paper?
– Are all coauthors responsible when one of them has violated professional ethics in the published work? If so, how can they be held accountable?
ResponsibiliTes as a Co-‐author • Nature 2007: Who is accountable? "I have ensured that every author in my research group has seen and approved this manuscript. The data that are presented in the figures and tables were reviewed in raw form, the analysis and staTsTcs applied are appropriate and the figures are accurate representaTons of the data. Any manipulaTons of images conform to Nature's guidelines. All journal policies on materials and data sharing, ethical treatment of research subjects, conflicts of interest, biosecurity etc. have been adhered to. I have confidence that all of the conclusions presented are based on accurate extrapolaTons from the data collected for this study and that my colleagues listed as co-‐authors have contributed and deserve the designaTon 'author'.” • If the damage to reputaTons were more widespread in the event of
fraud, researchers would be even more fasTdious about the data emanaTng from their labs.
(Co-‐)Authorship
Authorship establishes one’s record of scienTfic progress and claim to originality.
• How does one decide who will be an author? • How does one decide the order of authors? (protocols?)
Authorship Diplomacy (Credit) Anderson +2011
1) Omission of authors (denying credit) 2) Undeserved Credit -‐ surprise authorship (think proposals…) -‐ gi- authorship -‐ honorary authorship: to get tenure, “name a
senior department member as a co-‐author” -‐ legi1mizing authorship
3) APS Task Force-‐-‐> Funding: should the person who secures the funding automaTcally be listed as a coauthor?
Authorship Order Anderson+2011
“Authorship sits at the intersecTon between collecTve effort and personal ambiTon”
• Last posiTon: signify seniority ? Or minimal contribuTon?
• AlphabeTcal (e.g. SDSS)? Rotate the order? • First / Second author as more important?
On Being a ScienTst: Responsible Conduct in Research 2000, The NaTonal Academy of Sciences
Hewish, Bell et al. 1968
InteresTng Series about Jocelyn Bell Burnell and the discovery of pulsars: hxps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGi-‐GmSsFOA
Case Study: Publishing data from a collaboraTon
You are part of a collaboraTon that proposes to obtain a parTcular HST data set. A publicaTon plan is developed and submixed as part of the proposal. The data are taken and have gone public in the archive. You decide to publish the data (or a subset of the data) yourself without your co-‐Is as coauthors. Are you violaTng professional ethics? What are your responsibiliTes as a co-‐I? When does your obligaTon to a publicaTon plan (or as a co-‐I) end? What are possible consequences of your decision?
Courtesy Michael Meyer, ETH