“The Governance of Science”

1. “The Governance of Science” International Conference on Peer Review, Research Integrity, and the Governance of Science Dalian University of Technology Dalian, China May 21-23, 2012 • Mark S. Frankel, Ph.D. • Director, Program on Scientific Responsibility, Human Rights and Law • American Association for the Advancement of Science • Washington, DC USA

2. What is the AAAS mission?AAAS seeks to "To advance science, engineering, and innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all people." To fulfill this mission, we have several broad goals:Enhance communication among scientists, engineers, and the public;Promote and defend the integrity of science and its use;Strengthen support for the science and technology enterprise;Provide a voice for science on societal issues;Promote the responsible use of science in public policy;Strengthen and diversify the science and technology workforce;Foster education in science and technology for everyone;Increase public engagement with science and technology; andAdvance international cooperation in science.

4. Peer Review at ScienceAs a peer reviewer for Science magazine, you are part of a valued community. Scientific progress depends on the communication of information that can be trusted, and the peer review process is a vital part of that system. Ethical Guidelines for ReviewersReviews should be objective evaluations of the research. If you cannot judge a paper impartially, you should not accept it for review or you should notify the editor as soon as you appreciate the situation. If you have any professional or financial affiliations that may be perceived as a conflict of interest in reviewing the manuscript, or a history of personal differences with the author(s), you should describe them in your confidential comments. If, as a reviewer, you believe that you are not qualified to evaluate a component of the research, you should inform the editor in your review. Reviews should be constructive and courteous and the reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of the author. The reviewer should avoid personal comments; Science reserves the right to edit out comments that will hinder constructive discussion of manuscripts. Just as you wish prompt evaluations of your own research, please return your reviews within the time period specified when you were asked to review the paper. If events will prevent a timely review, it is your responsibility to inform the editor at the time of the request. The review process is conducted anonymously; Science never reveals the identity of reviewers to authors. The privacy and anonymity provisions of this process extend to the reviewer, who should not reveal his or her identity to outsiders or members of the press. The review itself will be shared only with the author, and possibly with other reviewers and our Board. The submitted manuscript is a privileged communication and must be treated as a confidential document. Please destroy all copies of the manuscript after review. Please do not share the manuscript with any colleagues without the explicit permission of the editor. Reviewers should not make personal or professional use of the data or interpretations before publication without the authors' specific permission (unless you are writing an editorial or commentary to accompany the article). You should be aware of Science’s policies for authors regarding conflict of interest, data availability, and materials sharing. See www.sciencemag.org/about/authors/prep/gen_info.dtl.

5. Global Summit on Merit ReviewWASHINGTON, D.C.MAY 13-15, 2012China ChunliBaiResearch Council: Chinese Academy of Sciences Title: President WenqingShenResearch Council: NSFC - National Natural Science Foundation of China Title: Vice President European Union Robert-Jan Smits Research Council: European Commission Title: Director General for Research and Innovation, European CommissionHelga NowotnyResearch Council: European Research Council Title: President

6. Global Summit on Merit Review WASHINGTON, D.C. MAY 13-15, 2012 Principles • Expert Assessment • Transparency • Impartiality • Appropriateness • Confidentiality • Integrity and Ethical Considerations Ethics and integrity are paramount to the review process.

8. Science High on Public’s Agenda • Enormous sums of public monies invested in scientific research- return on investment • Recognition that science is vital to country’s position in the global community • Policy decisions increasingly grounded in scientific knowledge • Promised benefits • Clash with ethical/religious values Conduct of Research Applications

9. Traditional View Of Governance of Science • Scientists represent a disinterested (objective), self-regulatingcommunity of peers. • Research is an activity routinely monitored by scientists as new ideas and methods are scrutinized by the relevant scientific communities. • Scientists can regulate themselves.

12. Ghostwriting Spreads “Scientists are accepting large sums of money from drug companies to put their names to articles endorsing new medicines that they have not written—a growing practice that some fear is putting scientific integrity in jeopardy.” “Originally, ghostwriting was confined to medical journal supplements sponsored by the industry, but it can now be found in all major journals…scientists named as authors will not have seen the raw data they are writing about…” By Sarah Boseley “Scandal of scientists who take money for papers ghostwritten by drug companies,” The Guardian, February 7, 2002

13. Respekt: Plagiarism booming among Czech university students18 June 2008More and more Czech university students attempt to cheat. They either crib their papers and theses from the Internet and other sources or even buy them from "ghost-writers.…

14. Publish-or-perish: Peer review and the corruption of sciencePressure on scientists to publish has led to a situation where any paper, however bad, can now be printed in a journal that claims to be peer-reviewedDavid Colquhoun 5 September 2011

15. A Sharp Rise in Retractions Prompts Calls for ReformCarl ZimmerApril 16, 2012

16. Lab Mistakes Hobble Cancer Studies But Scientists Slow to Take Remedies AMY DOCKSER MARCUSApril 20, 2012

17. Two Features of 21st Century Science • Science and scientists are undergoing ever-increasing public scrutiny • Science target of competing moral claims from more and more stakeholders

18. August 7, 2006

20. “And good ethics and policy can be severely subverted by science badly presented in the media, sometimes initiated by scientists themselves seeking to exaggerate the significance of their research.”Leonard Fleck, in Wrestling with Behavioral Genetics: Science, Ethics, and Public Conversation, 2006

21. Approximately 28 percent of American adults currently qualify as scientifically literate, an increase from around 10 percent in the late 1980s and early 1990s.February 2007

22. “providing citizens with the knowledge required to make informed decisions on science related public issues, the scientists and their organizations have both a unique competence and a special responsibility. As the producer and custodian of scientific knowledge the scientific community has the obligation to impart such knowledge to the public.”--AAAS Committee, 1960

23. SCIENCE2 MARCH 2012 The Limits of Government Regulation of ScienceJohn D. KraemerLawrence O. Gostin

24. Legal/ConstitutionalHuman RightsGlobal ScienceLack ExpertiseImpede Innovation and DiscoveryCosts $

25. Government Regulation + Professional Self-Regulation

26. Joint StatementNational Academy of EngineeringInstitute of MedicineFebruary 2, 1994 “As members of the professional research community, we should strive to develop and uphold standards that are broader than those addressed by the governmental regulatory framework for dealing with misconduct in science.”

27. Laws control the lesser man.  Right conduct controls the greater one.  Chinese Proverb