Technology, Research and Ethics Fabian Jeschull, Lei Zhang, Ali Dorostkar and Solveig Böhme

A special student – 1. A princess ● June 2009 Princess Victoria got her degree in Philosophy from Uppsala University ● Studies tailored for her by 1. Shortening the 3-year program to 1,5 years 2. Substitution of final thesis by an ”independent project” not open to the public like from regular students How can we be sure that Victoria`s degree is eqivalent to regular studies?

A special student – 2. An autist ● Autistic student got his degree in Chemistry at the University of Technology Chemnitz (Germany) in 2012 ● Did the program with an assistant who helped him organize and communicate ● Wrote exams in a Professor`s office without witnesses ● Did not have to publicly defend his final thesis How can we be sure that his degree is equivalent to regular studies?

L’Aquila quake: Italy scientists guilty of manslaughter  6 scientists sentenced to 6 years in prison Earthquake devastated the L’Aquila (Italy) and killed 309 people Smaller tremors recorded the month prior to the catastrophy Scientists were accused of having provided “inaccurate and incomplete and contradictory” information Can scientists be hold responsible for false predictions? (particularly natural ocurrances?)

To publish or not to publish? The ethical dilemma ● Published does not mean true. ● Publication influence scientific life. (job, salary, grant). ● Publish replication of results or new findings? ● Selective report of positive results. ● Is it reproducible? ● How much of the data should be available at the time of publication? - Scientic Utopia (Noes, Spies and Motyl) - Guilty of manslaughter - Who's afraid of Peer Review? (John Bohannon)

Solution ● Remove publication as an incentive? Just a way to share. ● Should Peer reviewer have a checklist replicate the results. 1. Already too much work, peer reviewers are volunteers. 2. The report is a short summary and does not contain all the conditions. 3. Reviewers miss lots of errors. ● Requiring replication from everyone - could reduce risk-taking. ● Publish a complete history of the research up to getting the results. (In favor of replication) ● Make the data publicly available. 1. Creates opportunities to replicate which solidify the results. 2. Increase accountability of the researcher. 3. Eases the process of finding errors. 4. Adapting and extending becomes easier.