Scientific integrity
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Scientific integrity

on

  • 916 views

An overview of Scientific Integrity

An overview of Scientific Integrity

Statistics

Views

Total Views
916
Views on SlideShare
913
Embed Views
3

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0

1 Embed 3

http://scientificintegrity.pbworks.com 3

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Scientific integrity Scientific integrity Presentation Transcript

  • Scientific Integrity
    An overview for Medical Students, Interns and Faculty Researchers
    At Duke University
    LSIS 5245
    Shamella Cromartie, North Carolina Central University
  • Who's Talking About Scientific Integrity?
    The President, the federal government, the FDA, the USDA, concerned scientists and researchers, political parties and agencies and even the general public, all over the world, are concerned with scientific integrity.
  • And what are they saying?
    The scientific integrity conversation includes issues of public health, global health, public safety, misleading research and its subsequent complications, endangerment and the threat it all poses.
  • Duke UniversityThe Duke University School of Medicine strives to transform medicine and health, locally and globally, through innovative scientific research and rapid translation of breakthrough discoveries.
    “One of higher education's essential responsibilities is ensuring the integrity of scientific research.” –Melissa Anderson, 2008
  • Key Concepts in Scientific Integrity
    Ethical conduct in science assures the reliability of research results and the safety of research subjects.
    Ethics in science include: a) standards of methods and process that address research design, procedures, data analysis, interpretation, and reporting; and b) standards of topics and findings that address the use of human and animal subjects in research.
    Replication, collaboration, and peer review all help to minimize ethical breaches, and identify them when they do occur.
  • What is the difference?
    Scientific Integrity:
    Because of the complexity, variability, and nature of scientific inquiry, the concept of integrity in research can be elusive, and its value cannot be easily assessed or measured.
    Scientific Misconduct
    is the violation of the standard codes of scholarly conduct and ethical behavior in professional scientific research.
    BUT
  • The measure of a man's character is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out.-Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1800 - 1859
  • What reasons lead to scientific misconduct?
    Pressure to Produce
    Cognitive Deficiency
    Inappropriate Responsibility
    Difficult Job/Tasks
    Professional Conflicts
    Stress/Pressure in General
    Supervisor Expectations
    Insufficient Supervision/Mentoring
    Non-collegial Work Environment
    Lack of Support System
    Substandard Lab Procedures
    Overworked
    Insufficient Time
    Poor Communication & Coordination
  • More reasons for scientific misconduct………
    Competition for Position
    Insecure Position
    Pressure on Self
    Over-Committed Desire to Succeed/Please
    Personal Insecurities
    Fear
    Carelessness
    Lack of Control
    Impatient
    Jumping the Gun
    Laziness
    Apathy/Dislike/Desire to Leave
    Personal Problems
    Psychological Problems
  • What Classifies as Scientific Misconduct?
    Specific acts of scientific misconduct include, but are not limited to, the following:
    Falsification or Misrepresentation of Data, which includes:
    reporting experiments, measurements, or statistical analyses never performed
    manipulating or altering data or other manifestations of research to achieve a desired result
    falsifying or misrepresenting background information, including biographical data, citation of publications, or status of manuscripts
    selective reporting, including the deliberate suppression of conflicting or unwanted data
    Photo Manipulation
    From St. John’s University Preamble and Definition of Scientific Misconduct
  • Misconduct continued…….
    PlagiarismThe misrepresentation of the words or ideas of another as one's own. More subtle practices include misleading or inadequate reference citation and duplicate publication of identical data without adequate reference.
    Abuse of ConfidentialityThe misuse of confidential information or the failure to maintain the confidentiality of such information. This includes the use of ideas and preliminary data gained from (1) access to privileged information through the opportunity for editorial review of manuscripts submitted to journals; and (2) peer review of proposals considered for funding by agency panels or internal committees.
    Other Practiceswhich seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, include, but are not limited to, the following:
    Aiding or facilitating acts of academic dishonesty by others. Violating pertinent federal or University regulations and ethical codes such as those involving the protection and welfare of human subjects and laboratory animals.
    From St. John’s University Preamble and Definition of Scientific Misconduct
  • Cases of Scientific Misconduct
    At the end of 2005, the scientific community was shocked by one of the greatest cases of misconduct in the history of science. Two breakthrough articles about stem cell technology from a Korean laboratory headed by Woo-Suk Hwang, published in Science, appeared to be almost completely fabricated and were therefore retracted.
    On May 12, 2006, Hwang was indicted on charges of fraud, embezzlement and breach of the country's bioethics law, without physical detention. Prosecutors also brought fraud charges against the three stem cell researchers. He embezzled 2.8 billion won ($3 million) out of some 40 billion won in research funds for personal purposes and the illegal purchase of ova used in his experiments.
    Scott S. Reuben (born 1958) of East Longmeadow, Massachusetts was Professor of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Massachusetts before being sentenced to prison for health care fraud. Reuben was considered a prolific and influential researcher in pain management, and his purported findings altered the way millions of patients are treated for pain during and after orthopedic surgeries.[1] Reuben has now admitted that he never conducted any of the clinical trials on which his conclusions were based "in what may be considered the longest-running and widest-ranging cases of academic fraud."[2]Scientific American has called Reuben the medical equivalent of Bernie Madoff, the former NASDAQ chairman who was convicted of orchestrating a $65-billion fraud.[1]
    Source: Wikipedia
  • The Messy Consequences of Scientific Misconduct
    • Termination of Employment
    • Blacklisted in the scientific community
    • Danger to human and animal subjects
    • Possible jail time
    • Possible monetary fines
    • Banned from future research or publication
    • Banned from requesting or receiving grant funds
  • Why maintain scientific integrity in your research?
    “Worldwide, most scientific research is conducted in higher education institutions. Funding for science is dependent on the ability of these institutions to support and maintain the legitimacy of the scientific enterprise. As long as the public sees scientific research as beneficial to the common good, support will be forthcoming from government and other sources. In other words, the financial underpinnings of science are derived from public perceptions that scientists act in the public interest.”
    MELISSA S, Anderson (2008), “Scientific Integrity: Maintaining the Legitimacy of the
    Research Enterprise”. Proceedings of the 4th International Barcelona Conference on
    Higher Education, Vol. 1. Ethics and relevance of scientific knowledge: what
    knowledge for what society?. Barcelona: GUNI. Available at http://www.guni-rmies.net.
  • Maintain Scientific Integrity
    Keep the best records possible in all scientific experimentation
    Continuously access the validity of your results through peer review.
    NO Shortcuts
    Validate your results through replication
    Consult trusted advisors
  • Remember!
    Honest error or differences of opinion are not considered research misconduct.
    Fact: Many allegations of plagiarism involve disputes among former collaborators who participated jointly in the development or conduct of a research project, but who subsequently went their separate ways and made independent use of the jointly developed concepts, methods, descriptive language, or other product of the joint effort. The ownership of the intellectual property in many such situations is seldom clear, and the collaborative history among the scientists often supports a presumption of implied consent to use the products of the collaboration by any of the former collaborators.
    ---Office of Research Integrity
  • Research Misconduct is Not a Joke!
    Do not commit irreversible damage to your career! Thinking about research misconduct now, will help you avoid it in the future.
  • References
    Anderson, Melissa.(2008), “Scientific Integrity: Maintaining the Legitimacy of the Research Enterprise”. Proceedings of the 4th International Barcelona Conference onHigher Education, Vol. 1. Ethics and relevance of scientific knowledge: what knowledge for what society?. Barcelona: GUNI. Available athttp://www.gunirmies.net
    Office of Research Integrity. http://ori.hhs.gov/
    St. John’s University Office of Grants and Sponsored Research. Preamble and Definition of Scientific Misconduct. http://www.stjohns.edu/academics/centers/grants/policy/misconduct/i_preamble2.stj
    Wikipedia. 2011.