Ethics and Good Research Practice
Aoife Shanley
Research Support Office, NUI Maynooth
13 October 2010
Ethics
• Define Ethics - ‘A code of behaviour considered correct, especially
that of a particular group or profession’ (Collins concise
dictionary)
•
Main Principle
• High Standard of integrity in Research
• Conform with University Policies
Ethics Procedures
• Procedures - When do I need Ethical Approval?
• Research involving Humans
• Research involving Human Derived Material
• Research involving animals
• Research involving Genetically Modified Organisms
• Research involving BioHarzardous Agents
Principles of Ethics
• Principles
• Integrity/Good practice
• Academic Freedom
• Data storage and retention
• Confidentiality
• Publications/authorship
• Conflict of Interest
• Misconduct in research
What is Good Research Practice?
The way in which research is:
• Planned and conducted
• Results are recorded and reported
• Discoveries are disseminated, applied, and exploited
• GRP is everyone’s responsibility
• Meet with your mentor regularly – insist upon it!
• Record your data and keep a notebook (paper or electronic)
Academic Freedom in Research
• A commitment to academic freedom is essential to a University
• By pursuing truth and its free expression, scholars and researchers
advance and disseminate knowledge
With this power comes great responsibility…
• To act in accord with the highest standards of integrity
Research Integrity
Requires:
• The highest professional standards
• A critical, open-minded approach
• Frankness and fairness
• Absolute honesty
• Avoiding:
• Fraud
• Piracy or plagiarism
• Sabotaging work, records or protocols
• Breach of confidence
Data storage and Retention
• Store in a way that permits ready paper or electronic verification,
with back-up
• Original data should be authenticated, to protect against
allegations of falsification of data
• Under the Freedom of Information Act 1993, any University is
required to allow access to documents which are in the
University’s possession under defined circumstances
• Data should be held for at least 5 years from the date of
publication
Confidentiality
• If you have access to another researcher’s work, you must get
permission before discussing details or ideas with another party
• Research subjects are entitled to confidential treatment of all
information that they give – Don’t blab!
• Confidentiality is important where there is potential for
commercial exploitation
Authorship
• Publication of research results and other scholarly work is an
intrinsic part of research
• Authorship should be granted to individuals who have made a
major contribution to the work and who are familiar with the
entire contents
• Authors should have participated sufficiently in the research to
take public responsibility for the content
• Other contributions to the work and financial support from
sponsors should be acknowledged formally
Publication
• Do report results
• Do publish data in a timely fashion
• Do not exaggerate the importance of results
• Do not publish without permission
• Do not publish the same data more than once
• Do not report results in the public media before reporting to a
research audience of experts
Conflict of Interest
Conflicts can be:
• Financial
• Personal
• Academic
• Political
• Conflicts of interest can occur at every stage and in many forms
• Ask yourself: “Do I feel even vaguely funny about what I’m doing
and am I motivated by some other agenda?“
• If the answer is “Yes”, then you must declare your conflict to your
employer, peer-review body (e.g. funding agency) or journal
Play the CoI Game!
1)
You’ve been sent a grant to review from a close competitor and the
grant is on something that you’re also trying to get funded. Is this a
conflict? What should you do?
2)
You’ve been sent a paper to review from a person who stole your
boy/girlfriend sometime in the past. You hate the person’s guts, but
have to admit that s/he is an excellent researcher and you respect
her/his work. Is this a conflict? What should you do?
3)
You’ve been sent a paper to review from a person who stole your
boy/girlfriend sometime in the past. You hate the person’s guts, but
have to admit that s/he is an excellent researcher and you’ve have
been hell-bent on destroying him/her ever since s/he did you wrong. Is
this a conflict? What should you do?
Misconduct in Research
• ‘Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing,
or rewiewing research, or in reporting results’ (US Office of
Research Integrity [ORI])
• Failure to follow established protocols
• Sabotage of research-related property of another researcher
• Does not include honest error or honest differences, or poor
research unless this encompasses the intention to deceive
In summary:
• Be a good academic citizen
• Know what you’re doing
• Keep track of what you’ve done
• Back everything up
• Don’t lie or cheat or blab
• Publish your discoveries
Good Research Practice - NOT
Professor Marc Hauser,
Dept of Psychology,
Harvard – August 2010
• Data falsification –
responses of tamarin
monkeys
• 8 instances of research
misconduct – 3
publications to be
retracted or corrected
Good Research Practice - NOT
The Hitler Diaries
•“Discovered” by journalist Gerd Heidemann
•April 1983, Stern magazine paid ~€5M to publish
extracts
•Authenticated by historians Hugh Trevor-Roper,
Eberhard Jäckel and Gerhard Weinberg
•Trevor-Roper was a Times Newspapers Director,
which had paid a lot of money to publish extracts –
Clear CoI!!!
•Diaries revealed as "grotesquely superficial fakes" made with modern
paper and ink, and full of historical inaccuracies
•Stern editors resigned, Trevor-Roper’s reputation damaged seriously,
Heidemann and forger Konrad Kujau sentenced to 42 months in prison
Good Research Practice - NOT
•Ethical Violations: Female lab members had to donate eggs
•Misconduct: Data was faked and used in more than one publication
•Hwang claimed ignorance “artificial mistakes” – Not good enough!!