1. School of Food and Nutritional Sciences
The good, the bad and the unethical: conduct and misconduct in research
Professor Alan Kelly
School of Food and Nutritional Sciences

2. What does ethics in research involve?
Certain fields have strict ethical practices and standards (e.g., medicine, research with animals, children)
All fields have expectations of professional conduct, honesty and behaviour
Common issues for research students – authorship, publication
High expectations and stiff punishments
Are researchers not always honest?
Why would they be dishonest?

3. Where might issues of misconduct and honesty arise in research?
Reporting results of research
- fabrication, falsification, plagiarism (FFP)
- secrecy or lack of transparency
- assigning authorship and credit
Supervisor-student relationships
Interacting with peers and colleagues
Knowledge of the behaviour of others
Acknowledging the work of others
Designing studies and applying for funding
Maintaining records of research
Use of copyright
Declaring conflicts of interest
Political or other pressures
Reviewing the work of others

4. Communication through
Idea
How research works
If research is an industry, publications are its products
Publishing is good for research and good for researchers
Multiple motivations for publishing
- self-less (for the field)
- selfish (for your career)
Core principles:
Clarity
Fairness
Quality above all
Honesty
Studies
Success?
Communication through
publication
Addition to knowledge
Recognition
More ideas!

5. Budgetary mismanagement Information concealment Competitiveness
Falsification
Fabrication
Plagiarism
Financial fraud
Research misconduct
Data omission
Budgetary mismanagement
Information concealment
Competitiveness
Questionable Research Practice
Honesty and openness
Fair dealings with others
Criticism wisely used
No conflicts of interest
Good research practice

6. Why would researchers be dishonest?
Reputation is key
Quality of reputation depends heavily on publications (quality more than quantity)
Jobs and success (sometimes money) depend on research productivity
Some try to take short-cuts
Reasons: gain, advancement, personal reward, insecurity, wish to impress, reluctance to admit failure
Also, credit is key
Authorship of papers very important: no honorary or ghost authors
Researchers must be open, especially regarding conflicts of interest

7. What is plagiarism?
Wilfull, or unintentional, use of another persons (or your own) ideas, results, methods, images or concepts without giving the proper credit
Researchers must beware of plagiarism in writing:
Always acknowledge sources
Check best acknowledgement for figures, tables etc. (adapted from, reprinted from)
Check how to seek proper permission to use another’s material
Be open and honest in your thesis
Now easier than ever to detect
Journals and examiners very vigilant
Avoid self-plagiarism

10. Fabrication and falsification
First classified by Charles Babbage 150 years ago
Falsification – changing/trimming/selecting data in a questionable or less than transparent manner
Can be hard to define precisely but key is to be open and honest regarding decisions made
Fabrication – making up data which have no basis in reality
Many cases unfortunately exist:
Piltdown man
Korean stem cells
Hendrik Schon

11. Authorship of papers: a key ethical minefield
The Vancouver protocols on authorship of papers in medical journals
(International Journal of Medical Council Editors)
Authorship credit should be based on
substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data;
drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content;
final approval of the version to be published.
Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, and 3.
When a large, multi-center group has conducted the work, the group should identify the individuals who accept direct responsibility for the manuscript. These individuals should fully meet the criteria for authorship/contributorship defined above and editors will ask these individuals to complete journal-specific author and conflict of interest disclosure forms.

12. Ethics and acknowledgements
1998: paper published (Wakefield et al.) suggests link between autism and use of MMR vaccine (specifically measles virus)
Study of 12 children, suggested “possible relation” in 8 cases
Wakefield suggests in press conference to launch paper that separate vaccines may be safer
Media pick up and publicise widely
Use of MMR vaccine falls as a result (parental decisions)
in UK, Blair advises parents to keep vaccinating
outbreaks of measles and mumps in Europe follow
2002: UK and US papers published that find no link between MMR and autism
2003: One author writes letter to Lancet suggesting paper was wrong: attacked by Wakefield as being pressured to do so

13. 2004: 10 out of 13 original paper’s (two refused) authors retract their findings – state that data presented do not support conclusion that has been drawn
Main author had received £50,000 research grant from lawyers trying to establish if parents of autistic children could sue vaccine manufacturers – not declared in acknowledgements

14. Your online textbook

17. How things get fixed

20. The sharp end of the stick: misconduct and you!
Read the guide and the code
Get ethical approval for the work you do where needed
Dealings with others
Knowledge of others
Take responsibility yourself
Maintaining and reporting your work
Understand plagiarism
No professional assistance with your thesis
Declare all contributions to your thesis
Module to be offered 2013/14

21. Conclusion: misconduct and research
The academic literature is fundamentally self-correcting – great strength
However, misconduct is a hugely serious issue because….
Wastes others’ time
Wastes money (grant and experimental)
Undermines public confidence
Undermines official confidence
Undermines morale
Leads to tighter scrutiny
Will get research students into serious trouble