Scientists and the Integrity of Research (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Importance of Ethical Conduct in Scientific Researchf
2017
The ultimate purpose in studying ethics is not as it is in other inquiries, the attainment of theoretical knowledge; we are not conducting this inquiry in order to know what virtue is, but in order to become good…" ~ Nicomachean Ethics, Book 2, Chapter 2 (1) To become good throughout one's career, and indeed throughout one's life, is not a journey with a defined end point, but a continuous process that requires integrity, honesty, and frequent self-reflection. In the field of scientific research, both innovation and accurate reporting of information are critical to society, and society implicitly trusts scientists and researchers to be ethical and honest in their work. The need for data reliability has become even more profound as technology advances at an ever increasing rate. Indeed, the tools of "big data," with its advances in statistical applications, have made it easier than ever to detect unethical behavior. Once an individual is associated with such behavior-once the implicit trust in their scientific integrity is broken-it becomes almost impossible to recover that reputation. When beginning the educational process, one's reputation is unvarnished, and during advancement into and through the workplace, this reputation for honesty and integrity should likewise progress. Without a doubt, this integrity is critical to find employment, to obtain research grants, to disseminate important findings, and generally to be a successful and respected scientific professional. Unethical behavior has occurred for centuries and has been perpetrated by famous scientists, including Isaac Newton, John Dalton, and Robert Millikan (2; 3). The offenses are often revealed in data that were "too good," lacking even a hint of random-and perfectly acceptable-error or variation. Even today, statistical rigor and proper experimental design are lacking in many studies. Yet not all misconduct involves data falsification ("cleaning of the data") or data fabrication ("making up the data"). Plagiarism and misappropriation of contribution are forms of theft that intrude on proper acknowledgment of the original work, which cost the true owner time, effort, and, in many cases, money. For the individual committing such a theft, there could be gratification and recognition in the short term… until the offense is discovered. Despite the risks and unethical nature of such behavior, studies have shown that plagiarism occurs more often than commonly appreciated (4). This document serves as an introduction to the importance of ethical behavior in scientific research, beginning with some well-known examples of unethical conduct and their severe consequences. For additional examples, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Office of Research Integrity lists case studies of misconduct dating back to 2008 (5). Many of these cases involve data fabrication or falsification in scientific publications, poster sessions, and grant applications. Like DHHS, the National Science Foundation maintains a compendium of misconduct investigations available to the public (6). Cases can be searched by the type of misconduct in 32 categories, such as plagiarism, data tampering, data falsification, sabotage, and intellectual theft. This database also identifies the repercussions in these cases; a brief scan reveals that punishments can be severe, possibly involving job loss, revoked academic degrees, and even criminal charges.
Scientists under the societal microscope: challenges to research integrity
Cadernos Ibero-Americanos de Direito Sanitário, 2021
COVID-19 promises to reshape every aspect of society, not excluding how science is perceived. However, it is not clear whether the authority of science and scientists will be enhanced or diminished, or whether such changes will affect mainly science as an endeavour or scientists as individuals. The aim of this paper is to analyze how a pandemic like COVID-19 could undermined the confidence in science and scientist and, to underline now, more than ever, the importance of trust in science and in scientists. Two main issues will be analyzed: first, we will analyze how putting science and scientists in the spotlight could impact science and scientists and, secondly, we will go through the history of COVID treatment and research to anticipate how misconduct and breaches on responsible conduct in research could undermine trust in science with serious risks and consequences.
Science ethics as a bureaucratic problem: IRBs, Rules, and Failures of control
Policy Sciences, 2006
Institutionalized science ethics" refers to the statutory, professional and institution-based ethical standards that guide and constrain scientists' research work. The primary institution responsible for implementing institutionalized science ethics is the Institutional Review Board. We examine the limitations of IRBs and institutionalized science ethics, using bureaucratic theory and, especially, theory related to the development and enactment of rules. We suggest that due to the very character of rules-based systems, improvements in IRB outcomes are unlikely to be achieved through either more or better rules or even by bureaucratic reform. Instead, we suggest that improvements in human subject protection can best be advanced through increased participation. Ours is not a call for more participation by the general public but participation, via "Participant Review Boards" of persons who are eligible, by the protocols of the research in question, to serve as subjects. This provides a level of legitimacy and face validity that cannot be obtained by IRB affiliates, even by "external representatives." In making these points, we review a recent science ethics controversy, the KKI/Johns Hopkins lead paint study. In spite of being approved by IRBs, the study resulted in a civil lawsuit that reached the Maryland Court of Appeals. The case illustrates the limits of institutionalized science ethics and the bureaucracies created for their enactment. The case also underscores the complex and equivocal nature of the ethical guidelines established under the National Research Act.
Medicine and law, 2010
Biomedicine is a fast moving and often challenging research field. To this extent, it seems that preserving one's integrity is becoming more and more complex and occasionally stressful for individual researchers. Highly competitive funding and publication, the commercialization of biomedicine in general, the media hype about some scientific fields, the politicization of research and higher education, and, last but not least, the increasing specialization necessary to deal with increasingly sophisticated experimental systems and technologies are aspects of this complexity. While guidelines and overseeing control boards are important regulatory instruments, which also serve to enhance awareness of scientific integrity and to increase transparency, are not sufficient to maintain and further develop a positive academic climate that motivates the community to adhere to high and consistent professional ethics. Here, scientific misconduct and misbehaviour will be illustrated by referri...
Scientific Integrity: From Theory to Practice
Maintaining scientific integrity is clearly important, but few scientists (or politicians) can describe and defend a coherent account. This talk will provide a clear definition, based on a philosophical account of what is valuable about science and the role of values in science, and then show how that definition elucidates complex issues such as the assessment of scientific expertise, the place for advocacy in science, and the relationship between science and politics.
Ethics and legislation in science - a general reflection
Ethics in science has not always been an issue for the public or even scientists conducting research. In former times, science was considered to be value-free and a lot of research projects were conducted without taking ethical aspects into consideration. At least since was shown that scientific research does not necessarily bear only good (i.e. the Manhatten project’s atomic bomb) the public not only began to be interested in scientific methods and how results are achieved, but also in the purpose of doubtful projects. Since there is no blind trust in science any longer and the one and only belief that science only bears good is out dated, ethics in scientific research is, in no case, de rigueur and has moreover become something comparable to an instrument that scientists can and have to use wisely in questionable situations. One might argue that the reflection on ethics is limited to researchers like physicians or veterinarians as their actions directly affect living beings. On closer examination the majority of scientists’ work in several fields inflicts consequences for third parties. Despite the generally admitted position that ethics is inseparably bound to scientific research, the science community still exhibits some sort of incapability in dealing with ethically significant situations.