University of Sunderland CSEM03 R.E.P.L.I. Unit 3b Ethical Issues: Cheating in Research CSEM03 REPLI

University of Sunderland CSEM03 R.E.P.L.I. Unit 3b Objectives At the end of this lecture you will be able to: Assess the issues in a case study of scientific fraud Assess how fairly the case was reported in the press Describe the factors that may contribute to fraud in publishing research

University of Sunderland CSEM03 R.E.P.L.I. Unit 3b Ethics in research writing: scientific fraud We are going to look at a case study of scientific fraud and how it was reported in the scientific press Your task is to assess the ethics of the issues and whether the assertions stated in the articles are fairly presented and unbiased (in other words are do they use unfair tactics to influence their audience)

University of Sunderland CSEM03 R.E.P.L.I. Unit 3b History of the Development of Ethical Codes in Research The Nuremberg Code (1947) was the first modern ethical code followed by the Declaration of Helsinki (1964) which has been modified several times. A recent version being the Handbook for Helsinki Committees (1998). Aligned with this is the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and more recently the World Health Organisation has issued International Guidelines on Ethics and Epidemiology (1990) and the International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects (1993). These general principles of ethical practice have subsequently been developed and form the basis of modern codes for investigations in most countries.

University of Sunderland CSEM03 R.E.P.L.I. Unit 3b Applying a personal ethical/ moral framework to research activities When you embark on a research project it is assumed that you will act honestly and with integrity (as a professional). What happens when things go wrong or someone is tempted to cheat?

University of Sunderland CSEM03 R.E.P.L.I. Unit 3b Can we identify factors that trigger misconduct? There is an argument that codes of practice really should only cover large-scale societal issues and that small-scale ethical issues are a matter for an individual’s conscience David Goldstein analysed the Schon case and others and identified three main triggers

University of Sunderland CSEM03 R.E.P.L.I. Unit 3b Fraud in the Bell Laboritories Jan Hendrik Schön is a German physicist who briefly rose to prominence after a series of apparent breakthroughs (recipient of Otto-Klung-Weberbank Prize for Physics in 2001, Braunschweig Prize in 2001 and Outstanding Young Investigator Award of the Materials Research Society in 2002). He claimed to have developed a transistor on a molecular scale The implications of his work were significant. It would have been the beginning of a move away from silicon-based electronics and towards organic electronics Soon after he published his work, others in the physics community alleged that Schön's data contained anomalies.

University of Sunderland CSEM03 R.E.P.L.I. Unit 3b The Schön scandal provoked discussion in the scientific community about the responsibility of coauthors and reviewers of scientific papers. Peer review is designed to find errors, as well as determine relevance and originality of papers, rather than detect fraud. It is disturbing that none of Schön's misrepresentations were caught by the peer review process. Some argued that the fact it was eventually spotted by his peers shows that the peer review process works. How was this case reported?

University of Sunderland CSEM03 R.E.P.L.I. Unit 3b In the matter of J Hendrik Schön by David Goodstein is Vice-Provost and Professor of Physics and Applied Physics at the California Institute of Technology Report from Physics Web “Bell Labs' decision to fire Jan Hendrik Schön for faking data shows that physics is vulnerable to scientific misconduct when the wrong factors line up. David Goodstein argues that the physics community must continue to root out misconduct wherever it appears "There are three danger factors in scientific misconduct," I would lecture to my classes in research ethics and anyone else who would listen. Not that misconduct in research happens whenever these factors are present. They are often present and misconduct in science is very rare. But these factors were present in every case I've studied. “

University of Sunderland CSEM03 R.E.P.L.I. Unit 3b Fraud in research papers: the ethical dilemma “Policing of misconduct in research is rarely undertaken The assumption is that researchers behave with integrity and are driven by their own moral standards which match society’s/ the University”

University of Sunderland CSEM03 R.E.P.L.I. Unit 3b Scientific fraud: Factors that can trigger misconduct in research “The first factor that can trigger misconduct is that the scientist is under career pressure. That's not much of a discriminator, because all scientists are under career pressure all the time, but it does point up the fact that this kind of misconduct is not motivated by simple monetary gain. Second, the perpetrators always think they know the right answer. In other words, faking data is never done with the intention of inserting a falsehood into the body of scientific knowledge. The intent is always to insert a truth without bothering to go to the trouble of doing the experiment properly. This kind of misconduct is always a violation of the scientific method, never purposely a violation of scientific truth. “

University of Sunderland CSEM03 R.E.P.L.I. Unit 3b Disciplines that may be more prone to cheating “Finally, the work is always in a field where reproducibility is not expected to be very precise. For example, if you take two organisms that are as nearly identical as you can make them - say, two transgenic mice - and expose them to the same carcinogenic agent, you don't expect them to develop the same tumour at the same time in the same place. So biologists who might be inclined to cheat generally don't have to fear that someone will quickly prove them wrong by repeating the experiment. That, I would conclude, is why faking data occurs in biology, not physics. “

University of Sunderland CSEM03 R.E.P.L.I. Unit 3b Catching the cheats “The Schön case has put scientific misconduct back on the front pages of the newspapers, and this time it is physics that is in the firing line. Being wrong is an essential part of progress in science. To the public, it is easy to confuse being wrong with being guilty. We cannot allow that to happen. If scientists start to fear being accused of misconduct when they are wrong, enormous damage will be done to the enterprise of science. In this case, the system worked. Science is self-correcting, as it is supposed to be. But we must not be complacent. If this kind of misconduct were to become commonplace, science would cease to be self-correcting and would be no better than any other belief system. Rooting out scientific misconduct in a sensible way will always be a grave responsibility for all of us.” Activity Think of examples of cheating that could arise in your field of study What mechanisms would you put in place to catch the cheats?

University of Sunderland CSEM03 R.E.P.L.I. Unit 3b Issues Encroachment on privacy Confidentiality Seeking guidance from more experienced researcher if subjects ask for advice on educational, personality or behavioural problems Safety Care when researching children Not collecting data ostensibly for one purpose but the subjects are not told the real purpose

University of Sunderland CSEM03 R.E.P.L.I. Unit 3b University of Sunderland Ethics Policies, Procedures and Practices You can access the document relating to the University of Sunderland ethics policies at:You can access the document relating to the University of Sunderland ethics policies at: