Overview of Ethics in Science….

Dr. Gail P. Taylor UTSA MBRS-RISE/MARC-U*STAR Programs 06/02/2009

Sources

► On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research ( COSEPUP ) , Second Edition (1995) Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy  http://newton.nap.edu/openbook/0309051967/html/index.html

► Beth Fischer and Michael Zigmond, Survival Skills and Ethics Program  http://www.pitt.edu/~survival ► Beyond the Beakers: SMART Advice for Entering Graduate Programs in the Sciences and Engineering. Gayle R. Slaughter, Ph.D. Baylor College of Medicine/National Science Foundation. 2005 ► Onlineethics.org –Published by the Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Science. Case Western Reserve University.

 http://onlineethics.org/index.html

Ethics:

► Studying and Analyzing Right from Wrong….

► May vary, but some more absolute through cultures – ex Lying or cheating.

Ethics in Science…

► Has both personal and broad cultural/world impact ► AKA Bioethics   Can involve Research Topics Can involve Behavior when doing research – Research Ethics

Ethics – Scientists’ Behavior

► Whatever gets you ahead, can trip you up… ► Science ethics problems impact can be wide ► Stakeholders can be extensive:         All lab employees Graduate students/postdocs Collaborators University (NIH Funding) Publishers/science Journals Funding Agency Taxpayers or donors The world…and particularly other scientists…

Impact of Misconduct

► Wasted time  Self – field ► Wasted Money  Taxpayer ► Lost public trust ► Lost reputation ► http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12749497/ ► http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/311/5759/3 35b Woo-suk Hwang

Ethics and Behavior

►

Most Common Problems

 Authorship ►

“Errors” in Science

 Data Integrity ► ► ► Honest errors Negligence  Carelessness Misconduct  Fabrication (Make data)   Falsification (Change data) Plagiarism (Steal Data)

Ethics and Behavior

► ► Other Problems or Concerns  Sharing of Data/Information – Idea theft  Conflicts of Interest ► Will funding influence results?

Illegal behavior  Attempts to harm others  Sexist/racist social problems

Authorship

► Motivations behind publishing:   Scientific papers report findings Quantity and Quality count!

  Promotes career ► document productivity ► document impact on field/reputation ► Promotion to full professor ► Advertises your lab for future trainees ► May be hired by more prestigious university ► Speaking fees ► Reviewer for Journals or government ► National pride Improves chances of more money!

Where Problems Arise w Authorship

► Who is qualified to be an author?

  Left out?

Too many included?

► What is the order of authors?

► Number vs Quality of pubs ► Same data, multiple journals

International Council of Medical Journal Editors

► ► ► ► http://www.icmje.org

Authorship credit should be based on ALL    1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; 3) final approval of the version to be published. Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, and 3.

Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group alone does not constitute authorship. Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.

Number and Quality of Pubs

► Least Publishable Unit  Scientific Papers tell a story… ► How much of a story is needed?

► Can we split and have two pubs?

► Publishing same data in multiple papers   Less ethical Frowned upon – reputation issue

Data Integrity and “Errors” in the Literature…

► ► ► All scientific results (and especially interpretations) must be seen as susceptible to error May show up in any publication Often difficult to prove causality ► ► ► Honest Errors (lowest concern)  Reagents wrong    Wrong use of machine Mathematics Wrong interpretations Negligence (greater concern)  Haste    Inattention Carelessness Publishing same results in multiple journals Misconduct…(Very high concern) ► These all make it into the literature/publications

Problematic Activities – Usually Not Misconduct

► Doing things that make your data fit a pre existing notion ► Often is NOT intentional  Asking leading questions  Cooking data – choosing data that fits idea… ► Never throw away datapoints ► If there is a problem during expt, write down.

  Could be used to justify non-inclusion Always let your mentor decide

Types of Misconduct

► ► ► ► Fabrication - making up data or results Falsification - changing or misreporting data or results Plagiarism - and using the ideas or words of another person without giving appropriate credit or other practices that deviate commonly accepted practices within the scientific community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research.

► Broad impact!

► UTSA Handbook: http://www.utsa.edu/grants/Research%20Related%20Policies%20 %20Section%202.htm

Fabrication/Falsification

► Creating data ► Changing data ► Intentionally ignoring data ► Inflating numbers ► Inflating # of research papers  Submitted…

Plagiarism

► Be very careful!

► Must reference others’ ideas and data ► Put others’ words in quotation marks ► Must NOT pull text out of other pubs and incorporate!

Misconduct Leads to Other Problems

► Cover-ups of misconduct ► Reprisals against whistleblowers ► Malicious allegations of misconduct ► False accusation  Blame your postdoc… ► Violations of due process in handling complaints of misconduct in science.

Lesser Offenses -

► Not Sharing Information  Science hypothetically “open” for sharing info  Sharing is required for progress   Idea/experiment theft can occur ► Small lab vs “factor” ► Extremely hard to prove ► May protect due to financial or prestige pressure What happens with secrecy comes in?

► Don’t share at conferences… ► Many researchers doing similar experiments ► NIH – if publish paper, must bank the sequence ► Federal – provisional patents

Lesser Offenses - Conflicts of Interest

► A circumstance that has possibility of influencing professional judgment    Owning stock in a Co., for whom you are doing critical research Smoking study funded by Tobacco Co.

Reviewing manuscripts one step beyond your own work

UTSA Conflict of Interest Policy

► Each PI shall submit to the Office of Research Development, by such activities. a financial disclosure statement listing all Significant Financial Interests of the Investigator (and those of the investigator's spouse and dependent children) that would reasonably appear to be affected by the research or educational activities proposed for funding, including interests in entities whose financial interests would reasonably appear to be affected ► ►

Significant Financial Interests.

Anything of monetary value including  salary or other payments for services (e.g., consulting fees or honoraria)   equity interests (e.g., stocks, stock options or other ownership interests) and intellectual property rights (e.g., patents, copyrights and royalties from such rights).

►

Does not include:

 Salary, royalties or other remuneration from The University of Texas at San Antonio    Income from seminars, lectures or teaching engagements sponsored by public or nonprofit entities Income from service on advisory committees or review panels for public or nonprofit entities An equity interest that, when aggregated for the investigator and the investigators spouse and dependent children, meets both of the following tests: ► ► ► does not exceed $10,000 in value does not represent more that a 5% ownership interest in any single entity; salary, royalties or other payments that are not expected to exceed $10,000 during the next twelve month period.

Illegal Behavior- not Scientific Misconduct:

► Problems non-specific to scientists:   Sexual or other harassment misuse of funds  Gross negligence in a person's professional activities  Tampering with the experiments of others or with instrumentation   Violations of government research regulations Criminal activity ► Radioactive water cooler… ► http://www.now.org/nnt/01-96/nih.html

► http://www.nih.gov/news/NIH-Record/10_21_97/story03.htm

Actually Making a Complaint

► Discuss the situation with a trusted friend, advisor, department chair ► When to put in writing! Important. It’s “official” then and must be acted upon formally  can have serious consequences for the career of a scientist (both) and should be undertaken only after thorough consideration.

How does UTSA Respond to Allegations?

► Allegations brought to Department Chair.  If about Department Chair, brought to President. ► PI and others notified. ► The Department Chair conducts inquiry (within 60 days complete).

Response II

► Written report shall be prepared and delivered to the President and accused.

► Accused must respond in 10 days. ► The President shall review the inquiry report  Dismiss charges  Proceed with hearing ► After the hearing:  Unsubstantiated – restore reputations and protect accuser and accusee.

 Substantiated?

► ► ► Penalties given.

Sponsoring agency notified Journal Editors notified.

Overall….

► Maintain your Integrity!

► Maintain vigilance over those in your employ