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 Engineering Macquarie University
Do you conduct your research with integrity ? Faculty of Science and Engineering | School of Engineering 3
Some statistics (from a study in the US) Source: Martison et al, Scientists behaving badly, Nature 435 : 737-8, 2005
What is (research) integrity ? Faculty of Science and Engineering | School of Engineering 5
“Integrity is the practice of being honest and showing a consistent and uncompromising adherence to strong moral and ethical principles and values. ” - Cambridge Dictionary -
Research Integrity ∈ Research Ethics
Integrity is “keeping your word”. Research Integrity ∈ Research Ethics
Research Integrity “Research integrity is the commitment – sometimes in the face of adversity – to the trustworthiness of the research process by 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
Scientific misconduct Data manipulation : falsification, Ghostwriting fabrication and obfuscation Plagiarism and self-plagiarism Redundant or duplicate publication of data or results Violation of ethical standards : obscured informed consent and unnecessary animal experiments Failure to declare conflicts-of-interest 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
Questionable / Bad Research Practices 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.
A word on publishing your research It is nothing like this…
A word on publishing your research • The referees are not the enemy … Consider them as an ally that can help in picking up flaws and improve your manuscript, (but also don’t use them like that). • Treat referee comments seriously. • Deal with each and every point in a serious manner. • Don’t cast aspersions on referees or try to guess the referees identity (You’re most likely to be wrong). • Be courteous to referees and editors.
Consequences of scientific misconduct For the individual: • Investigation >> Disciplinary Sanction >> Fired • Bad reputation, loss of funding • Black listed by journals and/or funding bodies • Jailed For the research team / faculty / university: • Waste of resources • Loss of time and money as research needs to be repeated • Reputation loss, loss of credibility, prestige and honor • Loss of funding For the research community: • Waste of time and resources (e.g. peer reviewers) • Loss of credibility in science with the general public and a turn towards pseudoscience • Loss of trust in scientific findings For the community: • Waste of tax-payers money • Disbelieve and loss of open debate
Retracted papers A low percentage but with large consequences In the US: Estimated funding totals of all NIH grants that contributed to 291 retracted articles between 1992 – 2012: $2,324,906,182 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.
Why trustworthiness in science matters …
Why trustworthiness in science matters …
Causes of scientific misconduct “Rotten Apple” “Rotten System” Academic culture of ‘Publish or Perish’ It’s okay if I Everyone does it don’t get caught ‘Easy fast science’ and technology is promoted at the cost of more risk full I was too busy and time-consuming research It was a too boring task Funding bodies that expect results I’m not going to before the research is done stay in research after my PhD It’s the Unhealthy competiveness amongst success that researchers counts As long as I Too much emphasis on positive sexy get paid I did it for outcomes the group Corporate agenda’s interfering with free scientific enquiry Conformity to the group Lack of funding and too many Peer pressure researchers (for wrong reasons) Normative social influence Neoliberal meritocracy and the ( see: Asch conformity experiment) commercialization of science
The Asch Conformity Experiment Video available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyDDyT1lDhA
The Macquarie University Code for Responsible Conduct of Research University and researchers commitments • Promote a culture that encourages responsible research. • Establish good governance and management practices. • Provide induction, training and continuing education for all researchers. • Promote effective mentoring and supervision for everyone involved in research. • Ensure a safe research environment. • Implement processes and policies to ensure fairness when considering reports of inappropriate research behaviour. Expectations • Maintain high standards of responsible research. • Ensure that research findings are reported responsibly. • Respect research participants and be aware of and comply with all requirements of human research ethics . • Respect animals used in research and be aware of and comply with all requirements of animal research ethics . • Respect the environment. • Report inappropriate research behaviours.
Research integrity and ethics IS NOT just complying to university regulations, the law, professional codes of responsible conduct, sets of rules, etc. It starts with YOU … Integrity is choosing courage over comfort. Choosing what’s right over what’s fun, fast or easy and practicing your values ~ Bréne Brown ~
And what about Ethics ? It’s not always about humans… Replace, Reduce, Refine
And what about Ethics ? 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.
On Being a Scientist Movie: On Being a Scientist, Netherlands Research Integrity Network (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCgZSjoxF7c)
Food for thought / discussion Who should get the credit? 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 on personal title. He states that most scientific discoveries, like the one on protein-protein- interactions, are not due to the endeavours of one person, and that he should not have acted as if it was. 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 publication. appears to have been published in his PhD. Plagiarism?
Recommend
More recommend
