Research Integrity A personal perspective Yves De Deene Department - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING Faculty of Science and Engineering Research Integrity A personal perspective Yves De Deene Department of Engineering The views expressed carry my own perspective as a researcher. Yves De Deene Professor of Biomedical
SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING Faculty of Science and Engineering
A personal perspective
Yves De Deene Department of Engineering
Yves De Deene Professor of Biomedical Engineering Macquarie University
3 Faculty of Science and Engineering | School of Engineering
Source: Martison et al, Scientists behaving badly, Nature 435: 737-8, 2005
5 Faculty of Science and Engineering | School of Engineering
“Research integrity is the commitment – sometimes in the face
the greater scientific community. It is important – even critical – because the greater scientific community can only innovate and flourish when its members function together as a body to ensure a climate that promotes confidence and trust in our research findings, encourages free and open exchange of research materials and new ideas, upholds personal and corporate accountability, and acknowledges and respects the intellectual contributions of others in the greater community.”
Source: http://www.webguru.neu.edu/professionalism/research-integrity
Ghostwriting
Data manipulation: falsification, fabrication and obfuscation Plagiarism and self-plagiarism Redundant or duplicate publication of data or results Violation of ethical standards:
unnecessary animal experiments Misleading ascription of authorship to a publication including listing authors without their permission, attributing work to people who did not contribute to the publication, omission of people eligible to be authors, lack of appropriate acknowledgement of work primarily produced by others Failure to declare conflicts-of-interest
Salami publications: Data gathered by one research project is separately reported (wholly or in part) in multiple end publications Duplicate publications: Similar data presented in several publications in different journals Journal shopping: Submitting a manuscript to a high ranked journal and if not accepted submitting to another (lower ranked) journal Data management: Not keeping original data or making it available to others Scientific dishonesty: Not retracting a publication while being aware of mistakes Bad statistics: Misuse of statistics, insignificant population size, formulating findings in a misleading way (e.g. the misuse of p-values) to enhance ‘significance’. p-HARKing: Hypothesis after results of an experiment or survey are known. Profiteering: Using the instrumentation, infrastructure, ideas, time commitment and/or intermediate findings of others without recognizing and acknowledging the work of others.
that can help in picking up flaws and improve your manuscript, (but also don’t use them like that).
identity (You’re most likely to be wrong).
For the individual: For the research team / faculty / university: For the research community:
For the community:
Source: Fang et al, Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications, PNAS 109(42), 17028-33, 2012. Stern AM et al, Financial costs and personal consequences of research misconduct resulting in retracted publications, eLife 3:e02956, 2014.
In the US: Estimated funding totals of all NIH grants that contributed to 291 retracted articles between 1992 – 2012:
A low percentage but with large consequences
“Rotten Apple” “Rotten System”
It’s okay if I don’t get caught Everyone does it I was too busy It was a too boring task I’m not going to stay in research after my PhD It’s the success that counts
Academic culture of ‘Publish or Perish’
As long as I get paid
‘Easy fast science’ and technology is promoted at the cost of more risk full and time-consuming research Funding bodies that expect results before the research is done Unhealthy competiveness amongst researchers Too much emphasis on positive sexy
Corporate agenda’s interfering with free scientific enquiry Lack of funding and too many researchers (for wrong reasons)
I did it for the group
Conformity to the group Peer pressure Normative social influence (see: Asch conformity experiment) Neoliberal meritocracy and the commercialization of science
Video available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyDDyT1lDhA
researchers.
in research.
considering reports of inappropriate research behaviour.
The Macquarie University Code for Responsible Conduct of Research
requirements of human research ethics.
all requirements of animal research ethics.
Expectations University and researchers commitments
Research integrity and ethics IS NOT just complying to university regulations, the law, professional codes of responsible conduct, sets of rules, etc.
Integrity is choosing courage over
practicing your values
~ Bréne Brown ~
It’s not always about humans… Replace, Reduce, Refine
It IS (also) your responsibility: As a collaborator with an industry partner or
any other organisation, you have a moral duty to question its practices.
Movie: On Being a Scientist, Netherlands Research Integrity Network (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCgZSjoxF7c)
Authorship and ownership may not always be a clear-cut case. For prof. Ponter the question of credits at the time of publication was not a question at all; he was the one who thought up the project, got it funded and made it happen. Pierre Descartin, although essential to the project, was just a PhD candidate who was lucky enough to get a chance to contribute to such an important research project. In the end prof. Ponter publicly acknowledges that he was wrong to accept the Weinberg prize
interactions, are not due to the endeavours of one person, and that he should not have acted as if it was.
Who should get the credit? Participation in animal experimentation (dog)?
Is animal experimentation morally justifiable? What criteria do you use? When is animal experimentation justified? Who decides?
Conflict of interest
Rebecca has an intimate relationship with Pierre Descartin. When does it become a conflict-of-interest? Pierre Descartin reads her a sentence that she includes in a scientific
In one fragment, over a glass of wine, prof. Ponter mentions a scientific study on drinking wine (‘Health aspects of drinking one glass of wine each day’). What is the risk of a study being subsidized by the industry (wine industry)? In another fragment, prof. Ponter elaborates on cancer research and mentions that pharma industry may not be very interested in finding a cheap drug to cure cancer. Regardless the mood and state in which he makes that statement, do you think there is any chance that corporate funded research may be driven by an agenda that isn’t necessarily ethical.
Conflict-of-interest / corporate agenda’s Dealing with integrity and ethical issues
Pierre Descartin is stalking prof. Ponter. What would be a more professional way of dealing with this matter? What steps would you take if you are confronted with a breach of research integrity?
The Macquarie University Code for Responsible Conduct of Research: https://www.mq.edu.au/research/ethics-integrity-and-policies/research-integrity Mayer T. and Stenek N., Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment, ed. World Scientific Publishing, 2012. Fanelli D., How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data, PloS One, 4(5): 1-11, 2009. Bauerlein M. et al, We Must Stop the Avalanche of Low-Quality Research, The Chronicle of Higher Education, June 13, 2010. Langley C. and Parkinson S., Science and the corporate agenda: The detrimental effects of commercial influence on science and technology, Scientists for Global Responsibility, 2009, ISBN – 978-0-9549406-4-5. Martinson B.C., Anderson M.S. and de Vries R, Scientists behaving badly, Nature 435(9): 737-8, 2005. Sarewitz D., The pressure to publish pushes down quality, Nature 533: 147. Kaiser M., The integrity of science – Lost in translation ?, Best Practice & Research Clinical Gastroenterology 28: 339-47, 2014. Liu S.V., What drives scientists crazy and causes them to misconduct? The origin and evolution of modern scientific misconduct, Scientific Ethics 1(1): 53-8, 2006. Nichols T., The death of expertise – The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters, Oxford University Press 2017. Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy, On Being a Scientist – A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research, Third Edition, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C, 2009
with peers, friends, supervisor, research integrity advisor, …
How independent and critical do you think and act ? The Milgram experiment
To answer the question how it was possible that Eichmann and a million of German accomplices committed such horrible atrocities in the holocaust, Stanley Milgram and colleague conducted a psychological experiment. The experiment was conducted in 1961, but has been repeated many times since then.
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67: 371-8.
In the Milgram experiment, three subjects are involved: The experimenter (E) orders the teacher (T), the subject of the experiment, to give what the latter believes are painful electric shocks to a learner (victim) (L), who is in reality an actor and confederate. The subject believes that for each wrong answer, the learner was receiving actual electric shocks, though in reality there were no such
up a tape recorder integrated with the electro-shock generator, which played pre-recorded sounds for each shock level.
Stanley Milgram (1933-1984)
Learner (victim) Receives electroshocks (not real, it’s an actor) Experimenter who
(actor) Teacher (test subject)
How independent and critical do you think and act ? The Milgram experiment
Video available at: https://vimeo.com/89396290
Voltage (V) Slight shock Moderate shock Strong shock Very strong shock Intense shock Extreme Intense Shock Danger: Severe Shock XXX Minimum Voltage (V)
All subjects gave at least 300 V ! More than 55% of the subjects went up to 450 V !
How independent and critical do you think and act ? Outcomes of the Milgram experiment
Milgram S. 1963, Behavioral Study of Obedience, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4): 371-8.
And … what would YOU have done ?
How independent and critical do you think and act ? Hannah Arendt
Jewish political theorist, 1906-1975
Arendt states that aside from a desire for improving his career, Eichmann was not driven by antisemitism nor psychological damage. Her subtitle famously introduced the phrase "the banality
Eichmann's deportment at the trial, displaying neither guilt nor hatred, claiming he bore no responsibility because he was simply "doing his job" ("He did his duty...; he not only obeyed
Arendt suggests that this most strikingly discredits the idea that the Nazi criminals were manifestly psychopathic and different from "normal" people. From this document, many concluded that situations such as the Holocaust can make even the most ordinary of people commit horrendous crimes with the proper incentives, but Arendt adamantly disagreed with this interpretation, as Eichmann was voluntarily following the Führerprinzip. Arendt insists that moral choice remains even under totalitarianism, and that this choice has political consequences even when the chooser is politically powerless.
Research misconduct A low percentage but with large consequences
Source: Fang et al, Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications, PNAS 109(42), 17028-33, 2012. Stern AM et al, Financial costs and personal consequences of research misconduct resulting in retracted publications, eLife 3:e02956, 2014.
In the US: Estimated funding totals of all NIH grants that contributed to 291 retracted articles between 1992 – 2012:
Research misconduct A low percentage but with large consequences
Source: Fang et al, Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications, PNAS 109(42), 17028-33, 2012.