Scientific research data Helene N. Andreassen & Mariann Løkse Academic integrity Take control of your PhD Journey: From (p)reflection to publishing University Library, UiT 27 April 2015 Colourbox.co m
Transcript
1. Scientific research data Helene N. Andreassen & Mariann
Lkse Academic integrity Take control of your PhD Journey: From
(p)reflection to publishing University Library, UiT 27 April 2015
Colourbox.com
2. Professor Hwang Woo-suk - supreme researcher and the pride
of Korea https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6X2M6niRBw
3. The Hwang Woo-suk scandal Publications in Science: creating
11 colonies of human embryonic stem cells through cloning
Fabrication: 9/11 colonies with shared DNA, i.e. from the same
source Fabrication: no evidence of cloned cells Ethical violation:
purchase of more than 1500 eggs from female donors, including 2
junior colleagues $2 million embezzled from research funds
Sentenced to 1,5 years in prison for embezzlement and bioethical
violations
4. Physicist Jan Hendrik Schn (2002) 2001: author on newly
published research every 8th day, on average Publications in
Science and Nature Replication failure Reuse of datasets to
represent different material Proper lab records non-existent, raw
data deleted I am convinced that they are real Revocation of PhD
degree Photo: activescience.wordpress.com
5. Brain researcher Milena Penkowa (2010) One of Copenhagen
Universitys major stars Award-winner and collector of huge research
funds Manipulation and fabrication of data Forgery of invoices,
embezzlement and lies Fabrication of praise of own research to
ensure funding Photo: www.bt.dk
6. But why? A narrative of individual impurity The scientist is
an actor behaving according to his own goals and values, instilled
by the activity of science itself Selfish motives Self-regulation
enhanced by training in ethics and codes of conduct A narrative of
institutional failure The scientist is part of a greater self
depending on funding and recognition, organized into a strict
hierarchy Pressure from above Protection of whistle-blowers and
stronger fines and penalties A narrative of structural crisis
Science as an arena with the traditional values, discovery,
recognition and cooperation, shifting Publication, exploitation and
competition Make science more transparent and discuss its interests
and values with the wider public; change current practice in
scientific activity Sovacool, B. (2008). Exploring Scientific
Misconduct: Isolated Individuals, Impure Institutions, or an
Inevitable Idiom of Modern Science? Journal of Bioethical Inquiry,
5(4), 271-282. doi: 10.1007/s11673-008-9113-6
7. Reducing the rate of scientific misconduct Where do you
think things need to change?
8. The trinity of scientific misconduct Falsification of data
Distortion of data or results Fabrication of data Invention of data
or cases Plagiarism Copying without attribution Distortion of
scientific knowledge A waste of human and financial resources
Possible risk to human health Consequences for careers (and thereby
the whole scientific enterprise)
9. Questionable research practices Mining Detection of
statistically significant relationships, presented as original
target Selective publishing Publication only when expectations are
met; conflicts of interest concealed Cooking Retention of only
those results that best fit the hypothesis or theory Inaccuracy
Citations; quotations; summaries; statistics and analysis Bias
Financial considerations; personal views Misrepresentation
Contribution to publication; originality of publication
(duplication, salami slicing)
10. What is the extent of scientific misconduct?
Colourbox.com
11. The extent of scientific misconduct Fanelli, D. (2009). How
Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review
and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. PLoS ONE, 4(5), e5738. doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0005738 Meta-analysis of 18 surveys on
research misconduct Limited to behavior distorting scientific
knowledge Self-reports Fabrication/falsification of data or
modification of results: 1.97% Other questionable research
practices: 33.7% Non self-reports Observed
fabrication/falsification of data or result modification: 14.12%
Observed other questionable research practices: 28.53% Observed,
more generic questions: 46.24% Action Observed misconduct acted
upon in 50% of the cases (5 studies) Involve authority,
confrontation, discussion with colleagues etc
12. Being (your own) whistleblower 1. Which motives drive
researchers to commit serious misconduct? 2. Hypothetically, in
which situation(s) would pressure be such that misconduct (FFP or
QRP) is tempting? 3. Are you sufficiently critical to yourself? and
to others? What would you do if you suspected research carried out
by others to be dubious? Jon Sudb, dental researcher convicted of
fraud (2006) Vastag, B. (2006). Cancer Fraud Case Stuns Research
Community, Prompts Reflection on Peer Review Process. Journal of
the National Cancer Institute, 98(6), 374-376. doi:
10.1093/jnci/djj118 Photo: aftenposten.no
13. Responsible conduct of research Steneck, N. H. (2006).
Fostering integrity in research: definitions, current knowledge,
and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1),
53-74. Responsible conduct of research (RCR) Research ethics
Possessing and steadfastly adhering to professional standards, as
outlined by professional organizations, research institutions and,
when relevant, the government and public The critical study of the
moral problems associated with or that arise in the course of
pursuing research Research integrity
14. RCR hands-on: where do you start? - make a data management
plan Phases Whys and hows Data collection Description of data to be
collected (type, size, format) ethics, control and economy Data
storage and back-up Security, encryption ethics, control and
economy Data documentation Organization (method, metadata, naming,
software) control and sharing (economy) Data access Copyrights,
limitations, access criteria ethics, transparency, sharing
(economy) Data sharing and reuse Publication (where and when),
audience, requirements on sharing transparency, sharing (economy)
Data preservation and archiving What to preserve and where? ethics,
sharing (economy) www.slideshare.net/Datacentrum/presentations
15. Time-consuming, yet vital And when its done (in a proper
manner), the long hours were worth it!
16. Research and society Helene N. Andreassen & Mariann
Lkse Academic integrity, Part II Take control of your PhD Journey:
From (p)reflection to publishing University Library, UiT 27 April
2015 Colourbox.com
17. The impact of scientific misconduct Possible impact
Undermine the reliability of the research record Weaken the trust,
internally and externally Waste research funds Lead to decisions
causing public or personal harm Steneck, N. H. (2006). Fostering
integrity in research: definitions, current knowledge, and future
directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 53-74.
Colourbox.com
18. The impact of scientific misconduct Real impact FFP
(Fabrication, falsification, plagiarism) Plagiarism wastes funds
and undermines trust between scholars Fabrication and falsification
undermine the reliability of research Most cases are discovered
before print Stimulate critical inquiries in the given research
field QRP (Questionable research practices) Duplication and salami
slicing waste money Financial bias in research related to
health-care, wastes money and impacts public health Steneck, N. H.
(2006). Fostering integrity in research: definitions, current
knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics,
12(1), 53-74.
19. Andrew Wakefield - linking the MMR vaccine to autism Autism
linked to childhood vaccines (1998 Lancet study) Replication
failure Alteration of the 12 medical histories to support claim
Unethical treatment of children Objective: financial gain in the
wake of the vaccine scare Godlee, F., Smith, J., & Marcovitch,
H. (2011). Wakefields article linking MMR vaccine and autism was
fraudulent. British Medical Journal, 342. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c7452 Photo: cnn.com
20. Andrew Wakefield - linking the MMR vaccine to autism
Retraction only after 12 years Unbalanced media coverage Wakefield
continues to push his view to the public Short term effect: Drop in
vaccination rates, leading to higher rates of measles, illness and
death Long term effect: Mistrust of vaccines in general and
re-emergence of previously controlled diseases Focus and money
diverted away from efforts to understand the real cause behind
autism Godlee, F., Smith, J., & Marcovitch, H. (2011).
Wakefields article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent.
British Medical Journal, 342. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c7452
21. A couple of take-home questions What is the role of your
research for society? Which impact could misconduct committed by
you (and your colleagues) have on future research and society in
general?
22. All slides available at
http://www.slideshare.net/UiT_takecontrol Photo: NTB scanpix