Ethics in Science
CHEM 6691 – Science & Technology in
Service to the Community
George M. Strain
June 27, 2003
Why worry about ethics in
research?
As a graduate student, you will be
engaging in some form of scholarship
or scientific research
This means you will be adding to the
body of knowledge in your discipline
Your work will build on the shoulders
of those who went before you – and in
turn others will build on your work
Why worry about ethics in
research?
“Science is validated by duplication of
research studies in other labs.” Right?
In reality, this is often not done for a
host of reasons, including cost and the
required effort.
This places an incredible responsibility
on your shoulders.
Why worry about ethics in
research?
 It means you cannot take short cuts. It
means you can’t fudge it.
 It means you have to do it right, whether
someone is looking over your shoulder or
not.
 Others will be relying on the intellectual
products of your scholarship as the basis
for theirs.
 This is the fundamental basis for the ethics
of research
The ethics of research has
three canons:
 Do not invent or distort (“fudge”) your data
 Do not steal data or take credit for the work
of others
 Do not hurt your research subjects
 If we abide by these three rules, we take a
personal stake in the integrity of science
Misconduct in Research
 The University and the greater academic
community do not have an Ethics Police out
looking for violators
 However, by federal law, we must have policies
and procedures for acting on allegations of
misconduct in research
 Violators are posted in the Federal Register and on
the PHS web:
http://ori.dhhs.gov/html/misconduct/casesummaries.asp
Federal definition:
 Misconduct in research is fabrication,
falsification, plagiarism, or other practices
that seriously deviate from those that are
commonly accepted within the research
community for proposing, conducting, or
reporting research. Misconduct is
significant action that improperly
appropriates the intellectual property or
contributions of others, that intentionally
impedes the progress of research, or that
risks corrupting the research record or
compromising the integrity of research
practices. (LSU PS-69)
Responsible Conduct of
Research
 On December 1, 2000, the US Public Health
Service announced final policy for instruction in the
Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) for
extramural institutions receiving PHS funds for
research or research training
 This policy required covered institutions (LSU) to
have in place a program of instruction that
complies with the policy as well as a written
description documenting the program
 Implementation was blocked for extramural
institutions, but is still required for PHS-funded
training programs and PHS intramural research
Responsible Conduct of
Research
 Instruction in core areas is required to the
extent that the core areas are applicable to
the institution's research programs and the
particular research projects and staff
involved
 Training programs in RCR enhance
graduate education and research programs
overall
 Nine core instructional areas are included in
the curriculum mandated by the PHS policy
Responsible Conduct of
Research – Core Areas
1. Data acquisition, management, sharing, and
ownership
2. Mentor/trainee responsibilities
3. Publication practices and responsible
authorship
4. Peer review
5. Collaborative science
6. Research involving human subjects
7. Research involving animal subjects
8. Research misconduct
9. Conflict of interest and commitment
Responsible Conduct of
Research
Links related to core instructional
areas:
www.research.lsu.edu/rcr/rcr.html
PHS resources for RCR training:
http://ori.dhhs.gov/html/programs/
instructresource.asp
Responsible Conduct of
Research
Examples, under Use of Human
Subjects in Research:
– Declaration of Helsinki (1964)
– The Belmont Report (1979)
– 45 CFR46 - Protection of Human
Subjects
– On-line PHS training program on the
protection of human subjects
Responsible Conduct of
Research
Examples, under Research Involving
Animal Subjects:
– Public Health Service Policy on Humane
Care and Use of Laboratory Animals
– NIH Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare
– Online Tutorial for the PHS Policy on
Humane Care and Use of Lab Animals
Responsible Conduct of
Research
Ethics resources:
– Scientific Integrity: An Introductory Text with
Cases, 2nd ed., F.L. Macrina (2000), ASM Press
– NIH - Bioethics Resources on the Web
http://www.nih.gov/sigs/bioethics/
– Moral Reasoning in Scientific Research
http://www.indiana.edu/~poynter/mr-main.html
– National Academy of Science Press Responsible Science Volume I: Ensuring the
Integrity of the Research Process (1992)
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309047315/html/index.html
Case study discussion:
The Jessica Banks Case:
Jessica Banks has just earned her
PhD and wants to take her lab
notebooks when she leaves for her
new job.
Her lab director, Brian Hayward,
objects.
She wonders what to do.
(from Moral Reasoning in Scientific Research)
Case study discussion:
Should Banks photocopy the
notebooks?
What are the relevant legal issues?
What (if any) are the relevant moral
issues?
(from Moral Reasoning in Scientific Research)
Issues and Points of Conflict:
 Bank’s (perceived) right to the notebooks
vs. Hayward’s (asserted) right to keep the
notebooks in his lab
 Bank’s (perceived) right to pursue the
research she worked on earlier vs.
Hayward’s (implicitly asserted) right to
control those lines of research
 Bank’s interest in establishing her
independence (by continuing projects she
began in Hayward’s lab) vs. her interest in
maintaining collegiality and personal
integrity
(from Moral Reasoning in Scientific Research)
Issues and Points of Conflict:
 Bank’s obligation to treat her mentor and
the institution with respect vs. her
obligation to warn other students about
conditions of employment and mentoring
that she perceives as an infringement on
students’ rights to their data, their ideas,
and their ability to establish independence.
(from Moral Reasoning in Scientific Research)