Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Sonia Vasconcelos - Ciência Aberta: Desafios Éticos e Culturais

37 views

Published on

Em 2018, o Programa SciELO celebrará 20 anos de operação em pleno processo de alinhamento com os avanços da ciência aberta.

A Conferência SciELO 20 Anos abordará e debaterá – em três dias de programação – as principais questões conceituais, políticas, metodológicas e tecnológicas que definem o estado da arte da comunicação científica e as tendências e inovações que estão moldando o futuro da publicação científica aberta e as relações com os periódicos em Acesso Aberto de hoje, em especial os da Rede SciELO.

O programa da conferência está organizado em torno ao alinhamento dos periódicos e a operação do SciELO com as práticas da ciência aberta, como a publicação dos dados das pesquisas, o aceleramento dos processos editoriais e de comunicação por meio da publicação contínua dos artigos e adoção de preprints, maximização da transparência nos processos de avaliação e fluxos de comunicação, e a busca por sistemas mais abrangentes para a avaliação de pesquisas, artigos e periódicos.

Antes da Conferência, terá lugar a Reunião Rede SciELO, quando serão debatidos o desempenho dos periódicos e do Programa SciELO e o seu aperfeiçoamento segundo as linhas de ação que guiarão o seu desenvolvimento para os próximos cinco anos.

A celebração dos 20 anos do SciELO constitui um marco e um momento especial para promover o avanço da globalização da comunicação científica e do movimento de acesso aberto de modo inclusivo em relação às diversidades de áreas temáticas, geográficas e idiomas da pesquisa científica.

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Sonia Vasconcelos - Ciência Aberta: Desafios Éticos e Culturais

  1. 1. 1 Ciência Aberta: Desafios Éticos e CulturaisCiência Aberta: Desafios Éticos e Culturais Sonia VasconcelosSonia Vasconcelos , Prog. Educação, Gestão e Difusão em Biociências, Instituto de Bioquímica Médica Leopoldo de Meis, IBqM/UFRJ
  2. 2. 2 I-I- Integridade em pesquisaIntegridade em pesquisa –– delineamento do conceitodelineamento do conceito dentro do campo dadentro do campo da ética na ciênciaética na ciência II-II- Ambiente de pesquisaAmbiente de pesquisa –– questões éticas e culturaisquestões éticas e culturais –– Exemplos que ilustram a relação dessas questões com noções sobre prioridade e integridade científica - apropriação de- apropriação de culturacultura como “...como “... um código através do qual as pessoas de um dado grupo pensam, classificam, estudam e modificam o mundo e a si mesmas....” (DAMATTA, 1986) III-III- Desafios postos aos jovens pesquisadores e instituiçõesDesafios postos aos jovens pesquisadores e instituições Ciência Aberta: Desafios Éticos e CulturaisCiência Aberta: Desafios Éticos e Culturais
  3. 3. 3 ““... um campo particular no interior da ética profissional do cientista... um campo particular no interior da ética profissional do cientista, entendida como a esfera total dos deveres éticos a que o cientista está submetido ao realizar suas atividades... No interior dessa esfera, pode-se distinguir, por um lado, o conjunto dos deveres derivados de valores éticos mais universais que os especificamente científicos. São dessa natureza aqueles que compõem o campo da chamada Bioética...” ““Research Integrity”Research Integrity” ““...... ao exercer suas atividades científicas, um pesquisador deve sempre visar a contribuir para a construção coletiva da ciência como um patrimônio coletivo, deve abster-se de agir, intencionalmente ou por negligência, de modo a impedir ou prejudicar o trabalho coletivo de construção da ciência e a apropriação coletiva de seus resultados. É a essa parte da ética profissional do cientista que remete a expressão “integridade da pesquisa” (Luiz HL Santos, 2011, http://www.fapesp.br/6566) I http://ethics-and-integrity.org/researchIntegrity/researchIntegrity.html
  4. 4. Sonia M.R.Vasconcelos 4 IIII I
  5. 5. 5 “Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.” “Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.” US Office of Science and Technology Policy , Federal Research Misconduct Policy [Federal Register: December 6, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 235)] ““Appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, orAppropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.”words without giving appropriate credit.” (US Office of Science and Technology Policy, 2000) I
  6. 6. Sonia M.R.Vasconcelos 6 https://www.socialsciencespace.com/2016/04/universities-need-to-escape-the-trap-of-competition/ II
  7. 7. 7 “A Calendar of Disputes over Priority. We begin by noting the great frequency with which the history of science is punctuated by disputes, often by sordid disputes, over priority of discovery. During the last three centuries in which modern science developed, numerous scientists, both great and small, have engaged in such acrimonious controversy. Recall only these few…” “… Galileo became a seasoned campaigner as he vigorously defended his rights toGalileo became a seasoned campaigner as he vigorously defended his rights to priority firstpriority first… he showed how his invention of the ‘geometric and military compass’ had been taken from him… Father Horatio Grassi, who tried ‘to diminish whatever praise there may be in this [invention of the telescope for use in astronomy] which belongs to me’… an unspecified villain … who ‘attempted to rob me of that glory which was mine, pretending not to have seen my writings and trying to represent themselves as the original discoverers of these marvels’.” http://www.revistaprincipios.com.br/artigos/104/ci%EF%BF%BDncia/2943/galileu-galilei-e -a-astronomia.html 1910-2003 II
  8. 8. Sonia M.R.Vasconcelos 8 IIIIIIII
  9. 9. http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/32287/title/All-s-Not-Fair-in-Science-and-Publishing/ “At conferences, the fear of potential theft of ideas is often the unacknowledged elephant in the room.” “False attribution within the sciences threatens the integrity of research as a whole. The ultimate goal must be open scientific dialogue and assurance that appropriate credit is given… The price of inaction is the slowing of progress and the pursuit of truth.”
  10. 10. https://www.nature.com/naturejobs/2012/120209/pdf /nj7384-265a.pdf Competition can overshadow the collaborative spirit and hinder progress.
  11. 11. 11 http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v11/n4/full/nrg2777.html III
  12. 12. 12 “As these were review articles, the ´plagiarism’ involved had less to do withhad less to do with copying specific sections of text and more aboutcopying specific sections of text and more about borrowing the ideasborrowing the ideas contained in the original paragraphcontained in the original paragraph, one of only a handful in the Plant, one of only a handful in the Plant Science manuscript that contained mention of new ideas or hypothesesScience manuscript that contained mention of new ideas or hypotheses.” (Editor of Plant Science) “As Chief Editor of Nature Reviews Genetics (and indeed the handling editor on Dr. Sticklen’s review article) I would like to make a few clarifications… A novel idea, notA novel idea, not simply a restatement of previously published ideas, was not credited to the source.simply a restatement of previously published ideas, was not credited to the source. Furthermore, the idea was obtained by breaching the confidentiality of the peer review process…” “As Chief Editor of Nature Reviews Genetics (and indeed the handling editor on Dr. Sticklen’s review article) I would like to make a few clarifications… A novel idea, notA novel idea, not simply a restatement of previously published ideas, was not credited to the source.simply a restatement of previously published ideas, was not credited to the source. Furthermore, the idea was obtained by breaching the confidentiality of the peer review process…” http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/28886/title/Plagiarism-retracts-review/ III http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v11/n4/full/nrg2777.html
  13. 13. 13 “Researchers early in their careers, typically bachelor, master and doctoral students up until completion of their degrees, experience two competing pressures. First, they confront fears of exposing their work, both out of concern about getting scooped, and also because of potential embarrassment for showing immature, naive, and possibly wrong data or procedures .” (KE, 2014) http://repository.jisc.ac.uk/5662/1/KE_report-incentives-for-sharing-researchdata.pdf
  14. 14. 14https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v550/n7677/full/nj7677-549a.html (2017)
  15. 15. 15 “Conspicuous by their absence from these efforts are the places in which science is done: universities, hospitals, government-supported labs and independent research institutes. This has to change. Institutions must support and reward researchers who do solid — not just flashy — science... the incentives to be first can be stronger than the incentives to be right….”. (Begley et al, 2015) https://www.nature.com/news/robust-research-institutions-must-do-their-part-for-reproducibility-1.18259
  16. 16. 16 https://www.leru.org/files/LERU-AP24-Open-Science-full-paper.pdf https://blog.v-comply.com/bring-change-culture-organization/
  17. 17. 17 svasconcelos@bioqmed.ufrj.brsvasconcelos@bioqmed.ufrj.br

×