Overview of Ethics in
Science….
Dr. Gail P. Taylor
UTSA MBRS-RISE/MARC-U*STAR
Programs
06/02/2009
Sources
►
On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research, Second Edition
►
Beth Fischer and Michael Zigmond, Survival Skills and Ethics Program
 http://www.pitt.edu/~survival
►
Beyond the Beakers: SMART Advice for Entering Graduate Programs in
the Sciences and Engineering. Gayle R. Slaughter, Ph.D. Baylor
College of Medicine/National Science Foundation. 2005
►
Onlineethics.org –Published by the Online Ethics Center for
Engineering and Science. Case Western Reserve University.
 http://onlineethics.org/index.html
(1995) Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy
(COSEPUP)
 http://newton.nap.edu/openbook/0309051967/html/index.html
Ethics:
► Studying
► May
and Analyzing Right from Wrong….
vary, but some more absolute through
cultures – ex Lying or cheating.
Ethics in Science…
► Has
both personal and broad cultural/world
impact
► AKA Bioethics
 Can involve Research Topics
 Can involve Behavior when doing research –
Research Ethics
Ethics – Scientists’ Behavior
► Whatever
gets you ahead, can trip you up…
► Science ethics problems impact can be wide
► Stakeholders can be extensive:








All lab employees
Graduate students/postdocs
Collaborators
University (NIH Funding)
Publishers/science Journals
Funding Agency
Taxpayers or donors
The world…and particularly other scientists…
Impact of Misconduct
► Wasted
time
 Self – field
► Wasted
Money
 Taxpayer
► Lost
public trust
► Lost reputation
►
►
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12749497/
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/311/5759/3
35b
Woo-suk Hwang
Ethics and Behavior
►Most
Common Problems
 Authorship
►“Errors”
in Science
 Data Integrity
►Honest errors
►Negligence
 Carelessness
►Misconduct
 Fabrication (Make data)
 Falsification (Change data)
 Plagiarism (Steal Data)
Ethics and Behavior
► Other
Problems or Concerns
 Sharing of Data/Information – Idea theft
 Conflicts of Interest
►Will
► Illegal
funding influence results?
behavior
 Attempts to harm others
 Sexist/racist social problems
Authorship
► Motivations
behind publishing:
 Scientific papers report findings
 Quantity and Quality count!
 Promotes career
► document
productivity
► document impact on field/reputation
► Promotion to full professor
► Advertises your lab for future trainees
► May be hired by more prestigious university
► Speaking fees
► Reviewer for Journals or government
► National pride
 Improves chances of more money!
Where Problems Arise w Authorship
► Who
is qualified to be an author?
 Left out?
 Too many included?
► What
is the order of authors?
► Number vs Quality of pubs
► Same data, multiple journals
International Council of Medical
Journal Editors
► http://www.icmje.org
►
►
►
Authorship credit should be based on ALL
 1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or
acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data;
 2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important
intellectual content;
 3) final approval of the version to be published. Authors should
meet conditions 1, 2, and 3.
Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the
research group alone does not constitute authorship.
Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take
public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.
Number and Quality of Pubs
► Least
Publishable Unit
 Scientific Papers tell a story…
►How
much of a story is needed?
►Can we split and have two pubs?
► Publishing
same data in multiple papers
 Less ethical
 Frowned upon – reputation issue
Data Integrity and “Errors” in the
Literature…
►
►
All scientific results (and especially interpretations) must be seen as susceptible
to error
May show up in any publication
Often difficult to prove causality
►
Honest Errors (lowest concern)
►
►




Reagents wrong
Wrong use of machine
Mathematics
Wrong interpretations




Haste
Inattention
Carelessness
Publishing same results in multiple journals
Negligence (greater concern)
►
Misconduct…(Very high concern)
►
These all make it into the literature/publications
Problematic Activities – Usually Not
Misconduct
► Doing
things that make your data fit a preexisting notion
► Often is NOT intentional
 Asking leading questions
 Cooking data – choosing data that fits idea…
► Never
throw away datapoints
► If there is a problem during expt, write down.
 Could be used to justify non-inclusion
 Always let your mentor decide
Types of Misconduct
Fabrication - making up data or results
Falsification - changing or misreporting data or results
Plagiarism - and using the ideas or words of another
person without giving appropriate credit
► or other practices that deviate commonly accepted
practices within the scientific community for proposing,
conducting, or reporting research.
►
►
►
►
Broad impact!
►
UTSA Handbook:
http://www.utsa.edu/grants/Research%20Related%20Policies%20%20Section%202.htm
Fabrication/Falsification
► Creating
data
► Changing data
► Intentionally ignoring data
► Inflating numbers
► Inflating # of research papers
 Submitted…
Plagiarism
► Be
very careful!
► Must reference others’ ideas and data
► Put others’ words in quotation marks
► Must NOT pull text out of other pubs and
incorporate!
Misconduct Leads to Other Problems
► Cover-ups
of misconduct
► Reprisals against whistleblowers
► Malicious allegations of misconduct
► False accusation
 Blame your postdoc…
► Violations
of due process in handling
complaints of misconduct in science.
Lesser Offenses ► Not
Sharing Information
 Science hypothetically “open” for sharing info
 Sharing is required for progress
 Idea/experiment theft can occur
► Small
lab vs “factor”
► Extremely hard to prove
► May protect due to financial or prestige pressure
 What happens with secrecy comes in?
► Don’t
share at conferences…
► Many researchers doing similar experiments
► NIH
– if publish paper, must bank the sequence
► Federal – provisional patents
Lesser Offenses - Conflicts of
Interest
►A
circumstance that has possibility of
influencing professional judgment
 Owning stock in a Co., for whom you are doing
critical research
 Smoking study funded by Tobacco Co.
 Reviewing manuscripts one step beyond your
own work
UTSA Conflict of Interest Policy
►
Each PI shall submit to the Office of Research Development, a financial disclosure
►
►
Significant Financial Interests.
statement listing all Significant Financial Interests of the Investigator (and those of
the investigator's spouse and dependent children) that would reasonably appear to
be affected by the research or educational activities proposed for funding, including
interests in entities whose financial interests would reasonably appear to be affected
by such activities.
Anything of monetary value including



►
salary or other payments for services (e.g., consulting fees or honoraria)
equity interests (e.g., stocks, stock options or other ownership interests)
and intellectual property rights (e.g., patents, copyrights and royalties from such rights).
Does not include:




Salary, royalties or other remuneration from The University of Texas at San Antonio
Income from seminars, lectures or teaching engagements sponsored by public or nonprofit
entities
Income from service on advisory committees or review panels for public or nonprofit entities
An equity interest that, when aggregated for the investigator and the investigators spouse
and dependent children, meets both of the following tests:
►
►
►
does not exceed $10,000 in value
does not represent more that a 5% ownership interest in any single entity;
salary, royalties or other payments that are not expected to exceed $10,000 during the next twelve
month period.
Illegal Behavior- not Scientific
Misconduct:
► Problems
non-specific to scientists:
Sexual or other harassment
misuse of funds
Gross negligence in a person's professional activities
Tampering with the experiments of others or with
instrumentation
 Violations of government research regulations
 Criminal activity




► Radioactive
water cooler…
► http://www.now.org/nnt/01-96/nih.html
► http://www.nih.gov/news/NIH-Record/10_21_97/story03.htm
Actually Making a Complaint
► Discuss
the situation with a trusted friend,
advisor, department chair
► When to put in writing! Important. It’s
“official” then and must be acted upon
formally
 can have serious consequences for the career of
a scientist (both) and should be undertaken
only after thorough consideration.
How does UTSA Respond to
Allegations?
► Allegations
brought to Department Chair.
 If about Department Chair, brought to
President.
► PI
and others notified.
► The Department Chair conducts inquiry
(within 60 days complete).
Response II
►
Written report shall be prepared and delivered to the
President and accused.
►
Accused must respond in 10 days.
►
The President shall review the inquiry report
 Dismiss charges
 Proceed with hearing
►
After the hearing:
 Unsubstantiated – restore reputations and protect accuser and
accusee.
 Substantiated?
► Penalties given.
► Sponsoring agency
notified
► Journal Editors notified.
Overall….
► Maintain
your Integrity!
► Maintain vigilance over those in your employ