Avoiding Scientific Misconduct in Prague

I recently spent an excellent few days in Prague, attending the 43rd FEBS Congress, at which I gave a talk about the importance of bioethics teaching, and ran a workshop on developing case studies in ethics teaching. A session on the final morning Scientific (mis)conduct: how to detect (and avoid) bad science illustrated one reason why this is a crucial dimension in the education of scientists.

prague1

I live-tweeted the presentations and organised them at the time within five threads. The post below represents a first attempt to use Thread Reader (@threadreaderapp) which operates a very straightforward “unroll” tool. Following the sad demise of Storify, I was curious to see if this would be a suitable alternative for curation of tweeted content. I have elected to offer both links to the unrolled threads and screenshots of the resulting notes. I’m relatively pleased with the outcome.

Getting back to the content of the session, it proved a really insightful overview of several aspects of research misconduct, and publication ethics. Continue reading

Advertisements

Responsible Conduct of Research

In June 2018, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council published the second version of their Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, replacing the original 2007 edition.

Cover of Australian Code 2018

The 2018 issue of the code replaces the original 2007 version

This is an outstanding document that deserves a prominent role internationally in guiding the promotion and maintenance of ethical conduct in research. As the preamble notes, the Code seeks to spell out the “broad principles that characterise an honest, ethical and conscientious research culture” (p1).

The list of 8 principles, 13 responsibilities for institutions and 16 responsibilities for researchers are clearly articulated and readily transferable to other contexts.  Only a couple of items in the code, pertaining to the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are specifically “Australian”, and it might be argued that these only exemplify what ought to be good practice for engagement with any biogeographical community.

As noted above, the clarity of the contents is exemplary. Interested parties are therefore encouraged to read the original document (A copy of the Code is available via this link). For those with limited time, the top line of the 8 principles are:

  1. Honesty in the development, undertaking and reporting of research
  2. Rigour in the development, undertaking and reporting of research
  3. Transparency in declaring interests and reporting research methodology, data and findings
  4. Fairness in the treatment of others
  5. Respect for research participants, the wider community, animals and the environment
  6. Recognition of the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to be engaged in research that affects or is of particular significance to them
  7. Accountability for the development, undertaking and reporting of research
  8. Promotion of responsible research practices

 

More on Codes of Conduct

The ESF has recently published a code of conduct

I have blogged here previously about various Codes of Conduct for Scientists (see Promoting the ethical conduct of Science). This is a short update to add links to a number of other Codes of Conduct, including a recent addition from the European Science Foundation. There is no particular selection criteria in operation regarding the Codes listed here, beyond:
(i) I’m aware of them,
(ii) they have relevance for bioscientists.

The Codes are listed in alphabetical order according to the responsible organisation. Please let me know if you are aware of obvious omissions.

American Society of Microbiology Code of Ethics (revised 2005)

European Science Foundation/ALL Europe Academies The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2011)

Government Office for Science (UK) Rigour, Respect, Responsibility: A universal ethical code for scientists (2007)

International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Code of Ethics (2005)

Research Councils UK Integrity, Clarity and Good Management: RCUK policy and code of conduct on the governance of good research conduct (2009)

UK Research Integrity Office Code of Practice for Research: Promoting good practice and preventing misconduct (2009)

How widespread is scientific misconduct?

From time to time examples of scientific fraud come to light and raise questions about the integrity of scientific endeavour. The most well-known example of recent years must surely be South Korean stem cell biologist Hwang Woo-Suk, whose ground-breaking discoveries in the field of therapeutic cloning were exposed as bogus (In addition to his science reputation being in tatters, Hwang was convicted in October 2009 of embezzlement and violation of bioethical laws, although he escaped a custodial sentence).

In physics, the multiple re-use of the same graphs as data for entirely different experiments led to the downfall of a leading young nanoscientist (this was the subject of a 2004 episode of the BBC’s Horizon series The dark secret of Hendrik Schön). Are Hwang and Schön rare examples bringing unwarranted criticism to a body of otherwise exemplary scientists, or are their crimes indicative of much wider malpractice within the scientific community?

fanelli

University of Edinburgh researcher Daniele Fanelli has shed some light on the the extend of scientific fraud in an article How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. Published in the open access journal PLoS ONE in May 2009, the research brought together data from a number of earlier smaller studies on scientific misconduct to generate “the first meta-analysis of these surveys” (p1).

Continue reading

  • Awards

  • November 2018
    M T W T F S S
    « Oct    
     1234
    567891011
    12131415161718
    19202122232425
    2627282930