Scientific Integrity Course

8/9/2019 Scientific Integrity Course

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/scientific-integrity-course 1/75

1Challenge thefuture

Scientific IntegrityPresentation by members of the

Section Ethics and Philosophy of Technology, TPM, TU Delft




Overview

1. Dealing with research data

2. Scientic integrity•Ethos of science

•Codes of conduct

3. Specic issues in research practice:•Conicts of interests•lagiaris!

•"uthorship•#u!an research su$%ects

&. Duties to society



&Challenge thefuture

Robert A. Millikan 1868 - 1953

"!erican e'peri!entalphysicist who won the(o$le ri)e for hysics in1*2& for•his measurement of the

elementary electronic charge

and

•his wor+ on the photoelectric

e,ect.

Felix Ehrenhaft 1879- 1952

"ustrian physicist whocontri$uted to:•ato!ic physics•optical properties of !etal colloidsand•the measurement of electricalcharges.



-Challenge thefuture

Manipulation of data?

•ili+an had chosen $etweendrops

•/ut of 10* o$serations only

1& presented in paper

•Still he wrote in his paper: Itis to be remarked that this isnot a selected group of dropsbut represents all of the

drops experimented uponduring 60 consecutive days”




Misconduct?

•9ncluding all data would hae pro$a$ly nothae led to another conclusion

Still:

•Should he hae included all drops7

•Should he hae !entioned and !otiatedwhy he left drops out7



*Challenge thefuture

Data

• Data fa$rication• a+ing up results and recording or reporting the!

• E.g. Schn ;22<= Stapel ;211<

• >alsication• !anipulating research !aterials= e?uip!ent= or processes or

changing or o!itting data or results such that the research is

not accurately represented in the research record

•Data tri!!ing

• 6eaing out @$adA data




Data trimming

6eaing out data can $e %ustied

But you ought to:

•#ae a proper log $oo+ of your e'peri!ents•Store all data•Be transparant a$out leaing out data•Be a$le to %ustify why you hae left out certain data




The Other Side of the Coin

”I did not withstand the pressure to score, to publish, the

pressure to get better in time. I wanted too much, too fast. In

a system where there are few checks and balances, where

people work alone, I took the wrong turn.” (D. Stapel)



1&Challenge thefuture

What to Do about ResearchMisconduct?




Different kinds of values

•9nstru!ental s. intrinsic alues•E'ternal alues s. 9nternal alues•Episte!icscientic s.EthicaloralSocial alues• (ote: here is a continuu! $etweenthese twoF• E.g.: #onesty ;ethical alue< isinstru!ental to episte!ic aluessuch as accuracy= and een to

+nowledge generation as the goal ofscience




CUDOS

•Co!!unis!

•Lniersalis!

•Disinterestedness

•/rgani)ed S+epticis!



2-Challenge thefuture

Communism

5esearch results are pu$lic property and should $eaccessi$le for all. 5esearchers should see the!seles

as contri$utors to the scientic co!!unityAs co!!on+nowledge $ase. 5esearch presses forward $y $uildingon past achiee!ents and through coHoperation.

herefore= results !ust $e pu$lished in full as soon aspossi$le.




Disinterestedness

5esearchers should $e e!otionally detached fro! their

eld of study and $e pursuing truth with a co!pletelyopen !ind. >urther!ore= research results should $euninuenced $y nonHscientic interests ;e.g. political=

econo!ic or religious<.




Organized Skepticism

5esearchers are o$liged to $e critical not only towards

the wor+ of others $ut also towards their own wor+.ossi$le sources of error= dou$ts and wea+ spots in theresearch should $e presented openly and the

researcher should $e his or her own ercest critic.




Assignment




Ethos might not always be enough

• #endri+ Schn fa$ricated data in

nu!erous pu$lications in (ature=

Science etc

• rof 6ydia Sohn and othersdiscoered the fraud

http:www.youtu$e.co!watch7Po0Qw+f%




Code of Ethics of TU Delft

Core Values Criteria Default

9ntegrity ransparency rust

5espect /penness

9nole!ent "ccounta$ility

E'pertise




What if you suspect scientificmisconduct?



3*Challenge thefuture

Part 3: specific issues in research practice:

conflicts of interest, plagiarism,

authorship, human research subjects



&1Challenge thefuture

• (etwor+ had as+ed Eseld for an interiew after he

had written an article in which he said that the

welding connections $etween rails are of a $ad

?uality

• rorail was unhappy with the article although they did

not de$ate the conclusions

• "fter tal+ing to rorail= Eseld decided to withdrawfro! interiew




• L Delft did internal inestigation on $asis of allegations

• Conclusions:

•

rorail had spo+en out heir disco!fort with the earlierarticle $ut had neer threatened to stop nancing the chair

• he infor!ation on which the earlier article was $ased was

not a result of research done at L Delft

• he !otiation that Eseld gae for withdrawing fro! the

interiew $y (etwer+ was !isleading

• But no $reach of scientic integrity




Options for action in conflicts ofinterest




Plagiarism

• resenting the ideas ;words= te'ts= processes= results=

argu!ents< of so!e$ody else as $eing your own

• (ot restricted to literal ?uotations

• "lso:• Sentence structure

• Structure of argu!ent

• (ew idea

•

5esearch results



-Challenge thefuture

What is wrong with plagiarism

• Stealing ideas and clai!ing undersered credit

• (ot giing proper credit to others

• 9!portance of leaing trail ;organi)ed s+epticis!<



-1Challenge thefuture

Self-plagiarism

• Rhat is it7

• ultiple pu$lication of sa!e content

• "lso +nown as sala!i slicing

eter (i%+a!p accusedof selfHplagiaris!




Discussion



--Challenge thefuture

Re-use of own texts may beallowed

• Iie proper reference for longer e'cerpts

• "s+ for copyright per!ission if re?uired

• Lsually only short passages ;unless reprint<




Authorship

• Di,erent conentions in di,erent disciplinesF

• ossi$le criteria:•

Contri$ute to paper e.g. $ringing in ideas= doing part ofthe research= writing

• "ll authors should $e inoled in drafting= at least

reiewing it

• a+ing praise !eans also willingness to accept $la!eF




Experimenting with humansubjects

• 5esearch with hu!an $eings has to full a ariety of criteria

• "fter trials against (a)i doctors who conducted grueso!ee'peri!ents with hu!an $eings in concentration ca!ps:

• (ure!$erg code http:en.wi+ipedia.orgwi+i(ure!$ergTCode• Eg infor!ed consent• 5especting hu!an dignity• Benets !ust $e clear• Etc

• L Delft also has a #u!an 5esearch Ethics Co!!ittee= #5EC:• http:www.tudelft.nlena$outHtuHdelftstrategyintegrityH

policyscienticHintegrityHco!!itteeresearchHethics




Assignment




Technology versus science

• Di,erent ai!s• Science: truth

• echnology: hu!an wellH$eing




Universal scientific laws versuscomplex interactions

• Conentional philosophy of science:deter!inistic= nding laws of nature

• Challenged $y e.g. (ancy

Cartwright and De$orah ayo:• 6aws of physics allo" for e,ects $ut

do not necessitate the!• Lnderdeter!ination• Due to co!ple' interactions• 5eal life e!pirical research needed

• Een !ore the case in engineering




National Society of ProfessionalEngineers (NSPE)

Engineering is an i!portant and learned profession. "s

!e!$ers of this profession= engineers are e'pected to

e'hi$it the highest standards of honesty and integrity.

Engineering has a direct and ital i!pact on the ?uality oflife for all people. "ccordingly= the serices proided $yengineers re?uire honesty= i!partiality= fairness= and

e?uity= and !ust $e dedicated to the protection of the

pu$lic health= safety= and welfare. Engineers !ust perfor!

under a standard of professional $ehaior that re?uiresadherence to the highest principles of ethical conduct.




Dominant view

• echnology as alueHneutral

•Engineering as a !athe!atical= ?uantitatie

discipline•Engineers as archetype of people who !a+e

decisions in detached= rational= ?uantitatie way.




Duties to society




No harm: duties of researchers



4*Challenge thefuture

Doing good




R ibli i



81Challenge the

future

Responsible innovation

5esponsi$le 9nnoation is an actiity or process which !ay

gie rise to preiously un+nown designs pertaining either

to the physical world ;e.g.= designs of $uildings and

infrastructure<= the conceptual world ;e.g.= conceptual

fra!ewor+s= !athe!atics= logic= theory= software<= the

institutional world ;social and legal institutions= procedures=

and organi)ation< or co!$inations of these= which H when

i!ple!ented H We'pand the set of releant feasi$le options

regarding soling a set of !oral pro$le!s.

;an den #oen 21&<

Mi i



82Challenge the

future

Mission

L DelftAs !ission is to !a+e a signicant contri$utiontowards a sustaina$le society for the twentyHrst

century $y conducting ground$rea+ing scientic and

technological research which is ac+nowledged asworldHclass= $y training scientists and engineers with

a genuine co!!it!ent to society and $y helping totranslate +nowledge into technological innoations

and actiity with $oth econo!ic and social alue.

Mi i



83Challenge the

future

Mission

L DelftAs !ission is to !a+e a signicant contri$utiontowards a sustaina$le society for the twentyHrst

century $y conducting ground$rea+ing scientic and

technological research which is ac+nowledged asworldHclass= $y training scientists and engineers with

a genuine co!!it!ent to society and $y helping totranslate +nowledge into technological innoations

and actiity with $oth econo!ic and social alue.



8&Challenge the

future

• http:www.engineeringchallenges.org

Di i



Discussion

Scientific Integrity Course

Documents

Transcript of Scientific Integrity Course