Science Ethics in ARS

1. Science Ethics in ARS

2. Research and Society • Research is built on a foundation of trust. • Scientists trust that reported results are valid. • Society trusts that results reflect an honest attempt by scientists to describe the world accurately and without bias.* *On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research, National Academy of Science.

3. ARS Code of Scientific Ethics • I dedicate myself to the pursuit and promotion of beneficial scientific investigation, consistent with the mission of the Agricultural Research Service. • I will never hinder the beneficial research of others. • I will conduct, discuss, manage, judge and report science honestly, thoroughly, and without conflict of interest. • I will encourage constructive critique of my personal science and that of my colleagues, in a manner that fosters harmony and quality amid scientific debate. • I recognize past and present contributors to my science and will not accept unwarranted credit for the accomplishment of others. • I will maintain and improve my professional skills and be a mentor to others. • I will ensure safety and humane treatment of human and animal subjects and will prevent abuse of research resources entrusted to me.

4. ARS “Scientific “Citizenship” • Awareness of the Code of Ethics • Awareness of Dual Use of Research • Familiarity with Publication Policy • Publish Your Results • Promote Safety and Health • Be a Mentor • Actively Participate in RPES and Other Committee Assignments

5. Role of Science Leaders • Recruit individuals of character and talent • Mentor young scientists • Serve as a role model • Uphold the highest standards of ethical conduct • Respond properly to situations related to violations of ethical standards

6. Why Publish? • Some individuals believe that the first to publish a new finding, not the first to discover it, tends to get most of the credit.

7. Important Points to Remember • Published results can extend knowledge since publications are accessible in a public format by other researchers. • Un-published results generally remain the property of the person holding the results and limits the amount of public information available. • Preliminary results can be discussed but have not yet undergone scientific scrutiny to validate their importance.

8. Why Peer Review? • Publishing in a peer-reviewed refereed journal remains the standard for judging research validity. • Peer review provides “quality control”. • Peer review can prevent dissemination of unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views.

9. However, even refereed journals can contain errors.

10. Results From Errors/Misconduct in Peer Review: • Fundamental errors published • Fraudulent data • Plagiarism • Abuse of inside information by reviewers

11. Findings released based on mistakes or misinterpretations Loss of credibility/trust among peers and the general public Research can be “shut down” if poorly conceived or bad information released Loss of potential patents if released prematurely and without scrutiny Risks of No Peer-review

12. Does data published in peer-reviewed refereed journals have more influence on science policy decisions – e.g. GMOs, food safety, pollution management, etc. than non-published data or data published without peer review?

13. Scientist Performance – Publications Evaluated annually through annual performance cycle and career related through RPES. Evaluations partially based on scientific contributions through publishing in peer-reviewed journals. Lack of peer-reviewed publications on an annual basis can result in scientist placed on performance improvement plan (PIP). Scientist can be removed from service if publishing remains a problem.

14. Questions