| Social
Responsibility/Scientific Fraud/Reporting Misconduct
M. Bebeau, 7/7/99
Learning Objectives
University Policies and Procedures
Curriculum Overview
Case Studies
Information Resources
Learning
Objectives
- Articulate the values that undergird the research enterprise.
- Describe the expectations of the scientist, including the affirmative
duty to monitor responsible research conduct.
- Distinguish the aspirational goals of the scientist from the
legal requirements for the responsible conduct of research.
- List the University of Minnesota Policies that apply to the
conduct of research and where they can be found.
- Briefly describe the steps (University of Minnesota Board of
Regents Policy on Academic Misconduct) for addressing allegations
of scientific fraud or misconduct (including when allegations
must be reported to the federal agencies) and apply these steps
to the resolution of selected case studies.
- Discuss the appropriate step for the whistle blower and conditions
under which negative consequences are minimized.
top
University
Policies and Procedures
top
Curriculum
Overview
Introduction
In an earlier module, we learned that the responsible conduct of
research has been an issue for as long as there has been research.
Yet in recent years, highly publicized cases of research fraud have
raised questions about the pervasiveness of misconduct as well as
questions about the effectiveness of the research community in 1)
transmitting the norms and values of science and 2) in monitoring
the research process. This module will address the norms and values
that undergird the research process, and then take up the question
of the role and responsibility of the individual, the scientific
society, and the institution in monitoring misconduct and promoting
research integrity.
top
Principles
- "[T]here is a principle which binds [the research] society
together, because without it the individual would be helpless
to tell the truth from the false. This principle is truthfulness."
(attributed to J. Brownoski, Honor in Science, 1991, p. 7)
- "Science's very lifeblood, its raison d’ être
is the discovery, testing, and sharing of knowledge, which if
false, is not only pointless, but positively harmful." (Camenisch,
1996, p. 826)
- "Scientific research in a clinical setting requires both
the physicians' and the scientists' guiding principles."
(Honor in Science, 1991, p. 28)
top
Social Responsibility
- Integrity in scholarship vs. integrity in science
To arouse interest: Consider similarities and differences in the
norms and values governing academic integrity (broadly construed
to include the artist, poet, and musician) with those governing
scientific integrity. In particular, consider the outcomes of
fabrication, falsification and plagiarism in the pursuit of scholarship
across disciplines (e.g., the arts vs. the sciences)
- The moral foundations of scientific ethics
- The norms of science
Merton's four key values of science
- universalism
- communism
- disinterested scientist
- organized skepticism
- The virtues expressed as requirements for a community of
scholars inquiry,
- honesty and candor,
- just and fair distribution of resources,
- the prohibition against messing up, or optimistically,
to help others out, and accountability in the use of power.
- The distinctive values in biomedical research
- Expected familiarity with the theory and/or science underlying
skills and knowledge attained through formal education and
certification by publicly recognized examination as a condition
of "research" practice
- The distinctive professional goods sought
- "the advancement of knowledge which enables professionals
serving clients directly, to serve them better."
(Camenisch, 1996, p. 828)
- the pursuit of intangible goals, such as justice,
health, or advancement of knowledge ("unreliable
results can transform goods sought into a harm experienced."
(Camenisch, 1996, p. 828)
- The profession's a typical moral commitment (expected
to place society's interests above our own [we "profess"
this commitment])
- dedication to the individual patient
- dedicated to the public purpose, the greater good
- Expected to exercise considerable powers of self-regulation
and autonomy
- trust of individual scientist predicated upon the
self-prescribed and monitored rules of science
- actions that affirm and sustain continued trust and
support of the institution and funding agency
- Transmitting the values of science
- The role of the mentors and advisors in the development of
the scientist
- The distinctive role of the mentor (to shape character,
build competence and serve as an advisor, protector, and
role model)
- The distinctive role of the advisor (to devise learning
experiences and direct technical and scientific activities
that are goal-oriented and critical. (See the Janet Landry
Case)
- The role of the individual scientific disciplines
- Developing statements of aspirations vs. specific prescriptions
to guide conduct within the discipline (See Frankel, 1996)
- Presence or absence of process and procedures for adjudicating
allegations of misconduct, including attention to whistleblowing
and methods for reporting misconduct (e.g., Code of Ethics
of the APA vs. Code of Ethics of AADR)
- The "promotion" of integrity (See Bebeau and
Holt, 1996)
- The role of the institution in setting standards and monitoring
the research process (In this section the point is simply made
that the institution has accepted its responsibility for the
monitoring of the research process by articulating its expectations
and developing policies to govern challenges to the legal and
ethical conduct of research. The learner is expected to be familiar
with these policies.)
- University of Minnesota Code of Conduct
- Values and ideals: honesty, trustworthiness, respect
and fairness in dealing with other people, a sense of
responsibility toward others and loyalty toward the
ethical principles espoused by the institution
- Rights and responsibilities
- Fairness
- Professional conduct
- Compliance
- Authorship
- Peer review
- Data collection and management
- Fiscal responsibilities
- Related Board of Regents Policies
- Academic Misconduct (detailed later)
- Financial or Business Conflict of Interest
- Financial Disclosure for Senior Officials
- Legal Defense of Employees
- Outside Consulting, Service Activities and Other Work
- c. Related Administrative Policies
- Direct and Indirect Charging
- Program Income
- Record Retention
top
Fraud and Scientific Misconduct
Introduction: "[F]rauds might have been exposed much more
quickly if other scientists had maintained a healthy skepticism
rather than been very willing to believe, or if those who were skeptical
had done something about it." (Honor in Science, 1991, p. 13).
Principle: "[E]ach member [of a scientific society] has an
affirmative duty to confront unethical practice." (Consensus
Statement, AADR Ethics Committee, 1996, p. 858)
- The definition debates
- "FF&P" vs. "other practices that seriously
deviate"
- Definition proposed by the Commission on Research Integrity
- University of Minnesota's (expanded) definition
- University of Minnesota's Academic Misconduct Policy
- Responsibilities, confidentiality, obligation to pursue
allegations
- Procedures of inquiry and investigation
- Consequences
- Retaliation
- The Office of Research Integrity (Department of Health &
Human Services) and the Office of Inspector General (National
Science Foundations)
- Case summaries are reported in the ORI Newsletter, a quarterly
publication of the Office of Research Integrity. For more
detailed information, see the "Findings of Scientific
Misconduct" section of ORI's web site located at http://ori.dhs.gov
- NSF publishes a Semiannual Report to the Congress that details
results of its investigations into allegations of misconduct
in science and engineering
- The Whistleblower
- The affirmative duty to monitor research conduct
- The role of effective and timely process in mediating the
consequences to the accused and the accuser. (See Lubalin,
J.S. & Matheson, J.L. The Fallout: What Happens to Whistleblowers
and Those Accused But Exonerated of Scientific Misconduct?
Science and Engineering Ethics 5(2): 229-250, 1999)
- Steps the whistleblower should take (See Gunsalus, C.K.
How to Blow the Whistle and Still Have a Career Afterwards.
Science and Engineering Ethics 4:51-64, 1998.) (See Kevles,
D.J. The Assault on David Baltimore (discussion of the roles
of Iminishi-Kari and Margot O'Toole). The New Yorker, pp.
94-109, May 27, 1997.
top
Case
Studies
The first case addresses the role of advisor vs. mentor and strategies
for addressing ineffectual mentoring/ advising on the part of the
director of a research laboratory. The next two cases involve a
mentor and her responsibilities when she suspects that a young scientist
who she has mentored has engaged in misconduct. The next four cases
address the Academic Misconduct Policy and are cases involving the
whistleblower. The last case includes a case that involves two academic
policy concerns: possible misconduct as well as a romantic relationship
between a lab director and graduate student.
- The Janet Landry Case (Bebeau, et al., 1994)
- The Charlie West and Diane Archer Cases (Bebeau, et. al, 1994)
Whose Manuscript?
- Weird Science
- Stanton's Statistics
- Dr. Bates in Biology
- The Bob Bailey Case (Bebeau, et al, 1994)
top
Information
Resources
Association of American Medical Colleges. (1992). Beyond the
"framework": Institutional considerations in managing
allegations of misconduct in research. Washington, DC: Author.
Bebeau, M.J., & Davis, E.L. (1996). Survey of ethical issues
in dental research. J Dent Res 75(2):845-55.
Bebeau, M.J., & Holt, S.C. (1996). Proceedings of a symposium,
toward responsible research conduct: The role of scientific societies.
J Dent Res 75(2):823-4.
Bebeau, M.J., & Holt, S.C. (1996). The role of the AADR in
promoting research integrity: Perspectives and consensus statements.
J Dent Res 75(2):856-60.
Bebeau, M.J. with Pimple, K.D., Muskavitch, K.M.T., and Smith,
D.H. (1994). Moral Reasoning in Scientific Research: A Tool for
Teaching and Assessment. Poynter Center. Indiana University. Includes
a student handout describing criteria for evaluating moral arguments,
six cases with facilitator notes for leading discussion, and scoring
guides for assessment of moral reasoning.
Bersoff, D.N. (1996). Process and procedures for dealing with
misconduct: A necessity or a nightmare? J Dent Res 75(2):836-40.
Buzzelli. D. Comments on Definitions of Misconduct. Webmaster
http://www.cwru.edu/affil/wwwethics/research_ethics/dbcom1.html
(comments on NSF definition)
Camenisch, P.F. (1996). The moral foundations of scientific ethics
and responsibility. J Dent Res 75(2):825-30.
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Research Integrity.
(1997). ORI model policy and procedures for responding to allegations
of scientific misconduct. Webmaster http://ori.dhhs.gov/models.htm
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Research Integrity.
(1995). ORI guidelines for institutions and whistleblowers: Responding
to possible retaliation against whistleblowers in extramural research.
Webmaster http://ori.dhhs.gov/guidelin.htm
Frankel, M.S. (1996). Developing ethical standards for responsible
research: Why? form? functions? process? outcomes? J Dent Res
75(2):832-5.
Gunsalus, C.K. (1997). Ethics: Sending out the message. [Editorial].
Science 276(5311):335.
Levin, M., Masters, K.J., Dresse, R., Rennie, D., & Gunsalus,
K.C. (1993). Scientific misconduct. [Letters and response]. JAMA
269(24):3105-6.
Mandel, I.D. (1996). On being a scientist in a rapidly changing
world. J Dent Res 75(2):841-4.
Merton, R. K. (1973). The normative structure of science. In
R. K. Merton, The sociology of science. (pp. 267-78). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1942)
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering,
& Institute of Medicine. (1995). On being a scientist. Responsible
conduct in research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering,
& Institute of Medicine. (1992). Responsible science. Ensuring
the integrity of the research process (Vol. I). Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Rennie, D., & Gunsalus, K.D. (1993). Scientific misconduct:
New definition, procedures, and office—perhaps a new leaf.
[Editorial]. JAMA 269(7):915-7.
Ryan, K.J. (1996). Commission of research integrity report sparks
debate on science and ethics. Professional Ethics Report, 9(2).
Publication of AAAS Scientific Freedom, Responsibility and Law
Program.
Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society. (1991). Honor in science.
Research Triangle Park, NC: Author.
Teich, A.H., & Frankel, M.S. (1992). Good science and responsible
scientists. Meeting the challenge of fraud and misconduct in science.
Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
top
|
