1. 1. Scientific research data Helene N. Andreassen & Mariann Lkse Academic integrity Take control of your PhD Journey: From (p)reflection to publishing University Library, UiT 27 April 2015 Colourbox.com
2. 2. Professor Hwang Woo-suk - supreme researcher and the pride of Korea https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6X2M6niRBw
3. 3. The Hwang Woo-suk scandal Publications in Science: creating 11 colonies of human embryonic stem cells through cloning Fabrication: 9/11 colonies with shared DNA, i.e. from the same source Fabrication: no evidence of cloned cells Ethical violation: purchase of more than 1500 eggs from female donors, including 2 junior colleagues $2 million embezzled from research funds Sentenced to 1,5 years in prison for embezzlement and bioethical violations
4. 4. Physicist Jan Hendrik Schn (2002) 2001: author on newly published research every 8th day, on average Publications in Science and Nature Replication failure Reuse of datasets to represent different material Proper lab records non-existent, raw data deleted I am convinced that they are real Revocation of PhD degree Photo: activescience.wordpress.com
5. 5. Brain researcher Milena Penkowa (2010) One of Copenhagen Universitys major stars Award-winner and collector of huge research funds Manipulation and fabrication of data Forgery of invoices, embezzlement and lies Fabrication of praise of own research to ensure funding Photo: www.bt.dk
6. 6. But why? A narrative of individual impurity The scientist is an actor behaving according to his own goals and values, instilled by the activity of science itself Selfish motives Self-regulation enhanced by training in ethics and codes of conduct A narrative of institutional failure The scientist is part of a greater self depending on funding and recognition, organized into a strict hierarchy Pressure from above Protection of whistle-blowers and stronger fines and penalties A narrative of structural crisis Science as an arena with the traditional values, discovery, recognition and cooperation, shifting Publication, exploitation and competition Make science more transparent and discuss its interests and values with the wider public; change current practice in scientific activity Sovacool, B. (2008). Exploring Scientific Misconduct: Isolated Individuals, Impure Institutions, or an Inevitable Idiom of Modern Science? Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 5(4), 271-282. doi: 10.1007/s11673-008-9113-6
7. 7. Reducing the rate of scientific misconduct Where do you think things need to change?
8. 8. The trinity of scientific misconduct Falsification of data Distortion of data or results Fabrication of data Invention of data or cases Plagiarism Copying without attribution Distortion of scientific knowledge A waste of human and financial resources Possible risk to human health Consequences for careers (and thereby the whole scientific enterprise)
9. 9. Questionable research practices Mining Detection of statistically significant relationships, presented as original target Selective publishing Publication only when expectations are met; conflicts of interest concealed Cooking Retention of only those results that best fit the hypothesis or theory Inaccuracy Citations; quotations; summaries; statistics and analysis Bias Financial considerations; personal views Misrepresentation Contribution to publication; originality of publication (duplication, salami slicing)
10. 10. What is the extent of scientific misconduct? Colourbox.com
11. 11. The extent of scientific misconduct Fanelli, D. (2009). How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. PLoS ONE, 4(5), e5738. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005738 Meta-analysis of 18 surveys on research misconduct Limited to behavior distorting scientific knowledge Self-reports Fabrication/falsification of data or modification of results: 1.97% Other questionable research practices: 33.7% Non self-reports Observed fabrication/falsification of data or result modification: 14.12% Observed other questionable research practices: 28.53% Observed, more generic questions: 46.24% Action Observed misconduct acted upon in 50% of the cases (5 studies) Involve authority, confrontation, discussion with colleagues etc
12. 12. Being (your own) whistleblower 1. Which motives drive researchers to commit serious misconduct? 2. Hypothetically, in which situation(s) would pressure be such that misconduct (FFP or QRP) is tempting? 3. Are you sufficiently critical to yourself? and to others? What would you do if you suspected research carried out by others to be dubious? Jon Sudb, dental researcher convicted of fraud (2006) Vastag, B. (2006). Cancer Fraud Case Stuns Research Community, Prompts Reflection on Peer Review Process. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 98(6), 374-376. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djj118 Photo: aftenposten.no
13. 13. Responsible conduct of research Steneck, N. H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 53-74. Responsible conduct of research (RCR) Research ethics Possessing and steadfastly adhering to professional standards, as outlined by professional organizations, research institutions and, when relevant, the government and public The critical study of the moral problems associated with or that arise in the course of pursuing research Research integrity
14. 14. RCR hands-on: where do you start? - make a data management plan Phases Whys and hows Data collection Description of data to be collected (type, size, format) ethics, control and economy Data storage and back-up Security, encryption ethics, control and economy Data documentation Organization (method, metadata, naming, software) control and sharing (economy) Data access Copyrights, limitations, access criteria ethics, transparency, sharing (economy) Data sharing and reuse Publication (where and when), audience, requirements on sharing transparency, sharing (economy) Data preservation and archiving What to preserve and where? ethics, sharing (economy) www.slideshare.net/Datacentrum/presentations
15. 15. Time-consuming, yet vital And when its done (in a proper manner), the long hours were worth it!
16. 16. Research and society Helene N. Andreassen & Mariann Lkse Academic integrity, Part II Take control of your PhD Journey: From (p)reflection to publishing University Library, UiT 27 April 2015 Colourbox.com
17. 17. The impact of scientific misconduct Possible impact Undermine the reliability of the research record Weaken the trust, internally and externally Waste research funds Lead to decisions causing public or personal harm Steneck, N. H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 53-74. Colourbox.com
18. 18. The impact of scientific misconduct Real impact FFP (Fabrication, falsification, plagiarism) Plagiarism wastes funds and undermines trust between scholars Fabrication and falsification undermine the reliability of research Most cases are discovered before print Stimulate critical inquiries in the given research field QRP (Questionable research practices) Duplication and salami slicing waste money Financial bias in research related to health-care, wastes money and impacts public health Steneck, N. H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 53-74.
19. 19. Andrew Wakefield - linking the MMR vaccine to autism Autism linked to childhood vaccines (1998 Lancet study) Replication failure Alteration of the 12 medical histories to support claim Unethical treatment of children Objective: financial gain in the wake of the vaccine scare Godlee, F., Smith, J., & Marcovitch, H. (2011). Wakefields article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent. British Medical Journal, 342. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c7452 Photo: cnn.com
20. 20. Andrew Wakefield - linking the MMR vaccine to autism Retraction only after 12 years Unbalanced media coverage Wakefield continues to push his view to the public Short term effect: Drop in vaccination rates, leading to higher rates of measles, illness and death Long term effect: Mistrust of vaccines in general and re-emergence of previously controlled diseases Focus and money diverted away from efforts to understand the real cause behind autism Godlee, F., Smith, J., & Marcovitch, H. (2011). Wakefields article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent. British Medical Journal, 342. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c7452
21. 21. A couple of take-home questions What is the role of your research for society? Which impact could misconduct committed by you (and your colleagues) have on future research and society in general?
22. 22. All slides available at http://www.slideshare.net/UiT_takecontrol Photo: NTB scanpix