1 / 12

PROFESSIONAL ETHICS

PSC 3001 – Introduction to Senior Projects in Science. PROFESSIONAL ETHICS. Adapted from On Being a Scientist, 3 rd Ed. On Being a Scientist, 3 rd Edition. “The scientific enterprise is built on a foundation of trust.”

tad
Télécharger la présentation

PROFESSIONAL ETHICS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PSC 3001 – Introduction to Senior Projects in Science PROFESSIONAL ETHICS Adapted from On Being a Scientist, 3rd Ed.

  2. On Being a Scientist, 3rd Edition • “The scientific enterprise is built on a foundation of trust.” • On Being a Scientist provides an overview of the professional standards of science This book was prepared under the auspices of the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, which is a joint committee of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12192

  3. Science is not easy! • “…the rewards of science are not easily achieved.” • Scientific breakthroughs are elusive • Researchers are often under pressure to produce results • There are many difficult decisions to make: • Design of experiments • Interpretation and presentation of results • Interactions with colleagues • Time and resource allocation • Credit for scientific accomplishments • Social and personal beliefs and values

  4. Research Misconduct • What is research misconduct? • The US government defines scientific misconduct as “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP) in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.” • It does not include honest errors (unless uncorrected), differences of opinion or interpretation, or authorship debates • The Misconduct Scale: • Innocent Ignorance • Surprising Sloppiness • Malicious Malfeasance

  5. Innocent Ignorance • Misconduct of the uninformed kind • Noncompliance based on a true lack of understanding of the regulatory consequences of an action • The act itself is usually intentional, but the noncompliance is unintentional • The act is not usually done to deliberately deceive • Examples: • Backdating a signature on a consent form because a person forgot to date the form originally • Discarding source documents after accurate transcription and reporting transcribed data as original

  6. Surprising Sloppiness • Misconduct of the lazy kind • Noncompliance due to inaction, inattention to detail, inadequate staff, or a lack of supervision • The act itself may be intentional or unintentional • Noncompliance is unintentional and is usually repeated • Examples: • Consent forms inadvertently not obtained from test subjects • Data inaccurately transcribed or recorded • Data estimated rather than actually measured • Standard operating protocols ignored or shortcuts taken

  7. Malicious Malfeasance • Misconduct of the sleazy kind • Usually noncompliance due to deliberate action to deceive or mislead • Includes Fabrication, Falsification, and/or Plagarism(FFP) • See Research Misconduct handout for definitions of FFP • Examples: • Creating data that was never obtained • Altering data that was obtained by substituting different data • Omitting data that was obtained that would usually be recorded • Misrepresenting data from another source as your own

  8. Dealing with Scientific Misconduct • Prevention • Identify and eliminate or minimize risk factors for misconduct • Detection • Monitor and recognize signs of fraud • Correction • Promptly investigate and report fraud Have you recently heard of any cases of scientific misconduct in the news?

  9. A Breach of Trust How would you classify this type of research misconduct? • See story on page 16 of On Being a Scientist • Jan HendrikSchön, former physicist at Bell Laboratories

  10. Fabrication in a Grant Proposal • See case study on page 17 of On Being a Scientist • Vijay and the “submitted” manuscript • 1. Do you think that researchers often exaggerate the publication status of their work in written materials? • 2. Do you think the department acted too harshly in dismissing Vijay from the graduate program? • 3. If Vijay later applied to a graduate program at another institution, does that institution have the right to know what happened? • 4. What were Vijay’s adviser’s responsibilities in reviewing the application before it was submitted?

  11. Is It Plagiarism? • See case study on page 18 of On Being a Scientist • Professor Lee and the grant proposal • 1. Does the copying of a few isolated sentences in this case constitute plagiarism? • 2. By citing the journal paper, has Lee given proper credit to the other author?

  12. Research Misconduct in the News • Organometallics SI example from July 2013:

More Related