The Responsible Conduct of Research:
Research Misconduct
Claudia Farber
Assistant Dean
Graduate School New Brunswick
September, 2009
Video vignettes & ORI
1st video behavioral science – research misconduct – 1st video
http://www.citiprogram.org/
Syracuse U. videos, #1, 2, 11
http://gradschpdprograms.syr.edu/resources/videos.php
ORI Website
Objectives
• Why study the Responsible Conduct of Research?
• Brief historical review
• Define “Research Misconduct” & “Questionable
Research Practices”
• Review Rutgers Academic Integrity Policy
• Identify issues surrounding research misconduct
• Develop techniques to resolve problems
• Breakout groups & discussion of case studies
Why study RCR?
1. Mandated
– 1989: NIH Training Grant Requirement
Office of Scientific Integrity (OSI/ORI) established for
policy, oversight, and investigation of misconduct
– 2000: NIH requirement: protection of research subjects
– 2007: America COMPETES Act mandates RCR training
– Aug. 2009: NSF Regulations: “each institution that applies
for financial assistance from [NSF]describe in its grant
proposal a plan to provide appropriate training and
oversight in the responsible and ethical conduct of research
to undergraduate students, graduate students, and
postdoctoral researchers participating in the proposed
research project.”
Why study RCR? con’t
2. New structural forces
“Increasing complexity and competitiveness in research
environments, the prevalence of interdisciplinary and
international involvement in research projects, and the
close coupling of commerce and academia have created
an ethically challenging environment for young scientists
and engineers.“ (Hollander, 2009)
3.
Maintain public support for research & trust in the results
–
Undermined by prominent cases: Tuskegee syphilis
study; Milgram’s studies on inflicting pain; recent news
reports, e.g., falsifying of stem cell data; withholding
data on cell phone driving risks; ghostwriting of drug
company studies by academics; etc.
4.
RCR is the right thing
In response…
– Most research universities require training in
RCR typically online training (e.g., CITI)
supplemented by workshops
– Proliferation of conferences, workshops,
publications, online resources, etc. from the
Council of Graduate Schools, the National
Academies, AAAS, NIH/NSF et al.
the right thing
“The scientific enterprise is built on a foundation of trust.
Society trusts that scientific research results are an honest
and accurate reflection of a researcher’s work. Researchers
equally trust that their colleagues have gathered data
carefully, have used appropriate analytic and statistical
techniques, have reported their results accurately, and have
treated the work of other researchers with respect.
When this trust is misplaced and the professional standards of
science are violated, researchers are not just personally
affronted—they feel that the base of their profession has
been undermined. This would impact the relationship
between science and society.” (National Academy of Science, 2009)
and…
“In general terms, responsible conduct in research is simply good
citizenship applied to professional life. Researchers who report
their work honestly, accurately, efficiently, and objectively are on
the right road when it comes to responsible conduct. Anyone who
is dishonest, knowingly reports inaccurate results, wastes funds,
or allows personal bias to influence scientific findings is not.
However, the specifics of good citizenship in research can be a
challenge to understand and put into practice. Research is not an
organized profession in the same way as law or medicine.
Researchers learn best practices in a number of ways and in
different settings. The norms for responsible conduct can vary
from field to field. Add to this the growing body of local, state,
and Federal regulations and you have a situation that can test the
professional savvy of any researcher.” (Steneck, 2007)
Federal Definition
Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or
plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in
reporting research results.
• Fabrication: making up data or results and recording or
reporting them.
• Falsification: manipulating research materials, equipment, or
processes, or changing or omitting data or results, such that
the research is not accurately represented in the research
record.
• Plagiarism: appropriation of another person’s ideas,
processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
From: http://www.ostp.gov/cs/federal_policy_on_research_misconduct
Federal definition continued
• To be considered research misconduct, actions must:
– represent a “significant departure from accepted
practices”
– have been “committed intentionally, or knowingly, or
recklessly”
– be “proven by a preponderance of evidence”
• Research misconduct does not include honest error or
difference of opinion
• Official misconduct (FFP) not common, approx. 1 in 10,000
researchers confirmed cases annually; but…
Questionable Research Practices (QRP)
• Violation of standards (accepted, discipline, lab… standards)
beyond the official (FFP) definition of research misconduct
• Self-reports of misconduct or QRP (Nature, 2005) 3:
– FFP violations: under 2%
– QRP: 33% researchers engaged in at least one behavior
judged (by university compliance officers) to be
“sanctionable” offenses (probably an underestimate)
• Much recent attention paid in articles, conference presentations,
blogs to QRPs
– More common; more impact than FFP
(De Vries, et al)
Martinson et al (2005)
Rutgers Interim Academic Integrity Policy, 9/08
• Violations include:
– Fabricating evidence, falsifying data, plagiarism
– knowingly or negligently facilitating a violation of academic
integrity by another person
– Knowingly violating a canon of the ethical code of the
profession for which a graduate or professional student is
preparing
• Any member of the Rutgers University community may report
an alleged violation of the AIP to the faculty member teaching
the course, to the Chair of the department, to the AIF of the
school or college, or to the Office of Student Conduct.
GSNB Academic Integrity: Issues for Grad Students
distributed by GSNB, 2008
“As a Researcher: Data must be accurate and complete.
Appropriate credit should be given to all who contribute to a
project. The following actions would, in most cases, constitute a
violation of the researcher’s ethical code:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Falsify/fabricate data or results
Selectively withhold data that contradicts your research
Misuse the data of others
Present data in a sloppy or deceptive manner
Fail to maintain accurate laboratory notebooks
Fail to credit authors appropriately. All contributors should
be acknowledged
Academic Integrity con’t
• Sabotage/appropriate the research of another
• Misuse research funds or university resources for personal
use
• Develop inappropriate research/industry relationships for
personal gain
• Fail to comply with federal and/or Rutgers guidelines for
the treatment of human or animal subjects
If you have questions about academic integrity, get them
answered before jeopardizing your career. Speak to your
faculty adviser, your graduate program director, or one of the
Deans of the Graduate School-New Brunswick (732-9327747)”
If you’re a TA
• Rutgers Academic Integrity Policy also has
guidelines for handling cheating or plagiarism
in your classes.
• Resources for Instructors:
http://academicintegrity.rutgers.edu/instructors.shtml
• Or consult faculty
Suspicions of Misconduct
“The circumstances surrounding potential violations of scientific
standards are so varied that it is impossible to lay out a checklist of
what should be done.”*
•
•
•
•
•
•
Examine your own biases and motivations; remain objective
Understand the standard you believe is being violated
Be clear on the evidence
Think about the interests/perspectives of everyone involved
Think about the possible responses of those involved
Consider if you can ask the person you suspect for clarification,
or otherwise express your concern
• Talk to a trusted advisor or friend
• Consider alternative courses of action and their likely outcomes
*National Academies
Break-out groups
(a) Pick someone to report to the group
(b) Read and discuss case
REPORT:
(a) Summarize (or read) case to whole group
(b) Review group discussion, consensus or majority
& minority opinions, and especially reasoning
processes
Full group: comments/questions/discussion
(4 case studies from National Academies, “On Being a Scientist)
Issues to consider
• Who has a stake in the situation?
• What are the interests and perspectives of
each of the parties?
• Where do the stakeholders interests conflict?
• What are the duties and obligations of the
parties? What professional norms and values
give rise to them?
• What are the alternative courses of action?
– And what are the likely consequences of each?
(Bebeau et al., 1995)
Evaluation of learning
• Name the two most important things you
learned about Research Misconduct that you
did not know before this workshop. Explain
your answer.
Additional slides
• The following case studies should be used as
handouts for each of the breakout groups
• Additional informational slides and references
follow those
Case #1: Discovering an error
Two young faculty members—Marie, an epidemiologist in the medical school, and Yuan,
a statistician in the mathematics department—have published two well-received papers
about the spread of infections in populations. As Yuan is working on the simulation he
has created to model infections, he realizes that a coding error has led to incorrect
results that were published in the two papers. He sees, with great relief, that correcting
the error does not change the average time it takes for an infection to spread. But the
correct model exhibits greater uncertainty in its results, making predictions about the
spread of an infection less definite. When he discusses the problem with Marie, she
argues against sending corrections to the journals where the two earlier articles were
published. “Both papers will be seen as suspect if we do that, and the changes don’t
affect the main conclusions in the papers anyway,” she says. Their next paper will
contain results based on the corrected model, and Yuan can post the corrected model
on his Web page.
1. What obligations do the authors owe their professional colleagues to correct the
published record?
2. How should their decisions be affected by how the model is being used by others?
3. What other options exist beyond publishing a formal correction?
Case #2: Fabrication in a grant proposal
Vijay, who has just finished his first year of graduate school, is applying to the National Science
Foundation for a predoctoral fellowship. His work in a lab where he did a rotation project was later
carried on successfully by others, and it appears that a manuscript will be prepared for publication
by the end of the summer. However, the fellowship application deadline is June 1, and Vijay
decides it would be advantageous to list a publication as “submitted” rather than “in progress.”
Without consulting the faculty member or other colleagues involved, Vijay makes up a title and
author list for a “submitted” paper and cites it in his application.
After the application has been mailed, a lab member sees it and goes to the faculty member to ask
about the “submitted” manuscript. Vijay admits to fabricating the submission of the paper but
explains his actions by saying that he thought the practice was not uncommon in science. The
faculty members in Vijay’s department demand that he withdraw his grant proposal and dismiss
him from the graduate program.
1. Do you think that researchers often exaggerate the publication status of their work in written
materials?
2. Do you think the department acted too harshly in dismissing Vijay from the graduate program?
3. If Vijay later applied to a graduate program at another institution, does that institution have the
right to know what happened?
4. What were Vijay’s adviser’s responsibilities in reviewing the application before it was
submitted?
Case #3: Is it plagarism
Professor Lee is writing a proposal for a research grant, and the
deadline for the proposal submission is two days from now. To
complete the background section of the proposal, Lee copies a
few isolated sentences of a journal paper written by another
author. The copied sentences consist of brief, factual, onesentence summaries of earlier articles closely related to the
proposal, descriptions of basic concepts from textbooks, and
definitions of standard mathematical notations. None of these
ideas is due to the other author. Lee adds a one-sentence
summary of the journal paper and cites it.
1. Does the copying of a few isolated sentences in this case
constitute plagiarism?
2. By citing the journal paper, has Lee given proper credit to the
other author?
Case #4: A career in the balance
Peter was just months away from finishing his Ph.D. dissertation when he realized that
something was seriously amiss with the work of a fellow graduate student, Jimmy. Peter was
convinced that Jimmy was not actually making the measurements he claimed to be making.
They shared the same lab, but Jimmy rarely seemed to be there. Sometimes Peter saw
research materials thrown away unopened. The results Jimmy was turning in to their
common thesis adviser seemed too clean to be real. Peter knew that he would soon need to
ask his thesis adviser for a letter of recommendation for faculty and postdoctoral positions.
If he raised the issue with his adviser now, he was sure that it would affect the letter of
recommendation. Jimmy was a favorite of his adviser, who had often helped Jimmy before
when his project ran into problems. Yet Peter also knew that if he waited to raise the issue,
the question would inevitably arise as to when he first suspected problems. Both Peter and
his thesis adviser were using Jimmy’s results in their own research. If Jimmy’s data were
inaccurate, they both needed to know as soon as possible.
1. What kind of evidence should Peter have to be able to go to his adviser?
2. Should Peter first try to talk with Jimmy, with his adviser, or with someone else entirely?
3. What other resources can Peter turn to for information that could help him decide what
to do?
General RCR discussion questions
• Should researchers report misconduct if they are concerned
that doing so could adversely impact their career?
• Should other practices besides fabrication, falsification, and
plagiarism be considered misconduct in research?
• What evidence is needed to demonstrate that a researcher
committed misconduct “intentionally, or knowingly, or
recklessly”?
• What are appropriate penalties for different types of
misconduct?
• What evidence is needed to demonstrate that a researcher
committed misconduct “intentionally, or knowingly, or
recklessly”?
• Is it fair to use “significant departure from accepted practices”
to make judgments about a researcher’s behavior?
Judging responses to moral problems
How does one decide whether a response is well-reasoned?
Criteria:
A. each of the issues and points of ethical conflict are
addressed
B. each interested party’s legitimate expectations are
considered;
C. the consequences of acting are recognized, specifically
described (not just generally mentioned), and
incorporated into the decision; and
D. each of the duties or obligations of the protagonist are
described and grounded in moral considerations.
(from Bebeau, 1995)
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bebeau, M.J., Pimple, K. D., Muskavitch, K. M. T., Borden, S. L. & Smith, D. H.
(1995). Moral reasoning in scientific research. Cases for teaching and assessment.
Accessed at http://poynter.indiana.edu/mr/mr-main.shtml
De Vries, R., Anderson, M. S., and Martinson, B. C. (2006). Normal Misbehavior:
Scientists Talk About the Ethics of Research. Journal of Empirical Research on
Human Research Ethics, 1(1), 43–50. Accessed online 8/11/09 at
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1483899
Hollander, R. (Ed.) (2009). Ethics Education and Scientific and Engineering
Research: What's Been Learned? What Should Be Done? Summary of a
Workshop. Accessed at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12695.html
Martinson, B.C., Anderson , M.S. & de Vries, R. (2005). Commentary: Scientists
Behaving Badly. Nature 435, 737-738.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7043/full/435737a.html
National Academy of Science. (2009). On Being a Scientist: A guide to responsible
conduct in research. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12192.html
Pimple, K. D. (2005). Collaborative Research: Avoiding Pitfalls and Sharing Credit,
K. D. Pimple, http://www.iupui.edu/~resed/collaborativereswkshp05intro.html
Steneck, N. H. (2007) ORI Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research,
Rev. ed.
Additional bibliography and links
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Office of Research Integrity (ORI): http://ori.hhs.gov/ (excellent resources)
Council of Graduate Schools Project for Scholarly Integrity:
http://www.scholarlyintegrity.org/
Council of Graduate Schools: Best practices in graduate education for the
responsible conduct of research, 2008.
National Academy of Engineering Online Ethics Center:
http://www.onlineethics.org/ ;
http://www.nae.edu/nae/engethicscen.nsf/weblinks/NKAL7LHM86?OpenDocument
Codes of Ethics Online: http://ethics.iit.edu/codes/coe.html
Anderson, M. S., Ronning, E.A., De Vries, R. & Martinson, B. C. (2007). The Perverse
Effects of Competition on Scientists’ Work and Relationships. Sci Eng Ethics,
Accessed online, 8/11/09,
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l0764324110225n0/fulltext.pdf
Odling-Smee, L., Giles, J. , Fuyuno, I., Cyranoski, D., & Marris, E. (2007). Misconduct
special: Where are they now? Nature 445, 244-245 | doi:10.1038/445244a;
Published online 17 January 2007
Syracuse University videos. Accessed at
http://gradschpdprograms.syr.edu/resources/videos.php
Goodman, Allegra. Intuition. (A novel)
Bibliography, con’t
• Ethics Education and Scientific and Engineering Research:
What's Been Learned? What Should be Done?, 2009:
http://www.nae.edu/?ID=14646
• National Digital Library for Ethics in Science & Engineering –
Beta http://www.umass.edu/sts/digitallibrary/
• Programs involved in international collaborations, see
http://tinyurl.com/l76p3b
Rutgers University Links
Academic Integrity Policy (9/2/08)
http://academicintegrity.rutgers.edu/
http://policies.rutgers.edu/PDF/Section10/10.2.13-current.pdf
• Graduate School – New Brunswick: Academic Issues
for Graduate Students
http://gsnb.rutgers.edu/publications/academic_integrity.pdf
• University Policies for Dealing with Allegations of
Misconduct in Research (1990)
http://orsp.rutgers.edu/policies_misconduct.php
• Ethics at Rutgers, http://uhr.rutgers.edu/ethics/
America COMPETES Act, 2007 & NSF, 2009
SEC. 7008. POSTDOCTORAL RESEARCH FELLOWS.
(a) MENTORING.—The Director shall require that all grant
applications that include funding to support postdoctoral
researchers include a description of the mentoring activities that
will be provided for such ... Mentoring activities may include… training in research
ethics.
SEC. 7009. RESPONSIBLE CONDUCT OF RESEARCH.
The Director shall require that each institution that applies
for financial assistance from the Foundation for science and
engineering research or education describe in its grant proposal
a plan to provide appropriate training and oversight in the responsible
and ethical conduct of research to undergraduate students,
graduate students, and postdoctoral researchers
Available at: http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/2272.pdf
NSF Regulations, 8/09: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-19930.htm
NJ Whistleblower Protection Law
“NJ law prohibits an employer from taking any retaliatory action against an
employee because the employee does any of the following:
Discloses, or threatens to disclose…an activity, policy, or practice of the
employer… that the employee reasonably believes is in violation of a law…
Provides information to…any public body conducting an investigation, hearing
or inquiry into any violation of law, or a rule or regulation … or
Objects to, or refuses to participate in, any activity, policy or practice which
the employee reasonably believes:
– is in violation of a law, or a rule or regulation issued under the law…
– is fraudulent or criminal; or
– is incompatible with a clear mandate of public policy concerning the
public health, safety or welfare or protection of the environment. “
The contact person to answer questions or provide information regarding your
rights and responsibilities under this act: Harry Agnostak, Assistant Vice
President for Human Resources
http://uhr.rutgers.edu/lr/CEPA.htm