1

Ethics and integrity in research NT 30.01.2014

• What is research ethics?• Practical focus on scientific

misconduct

Rune NydalDepartment of Philosophy and Religious studies

Programme for Applied Ethics, NTNU

2

What is research ethics?Professional duties and obligations

• ”Research” – “ethics”– Research: The activity that enable us to test hypothesis and

produce valid knowledge– Ethics: Specifies the way researchers ought to conduct themselves

when pursuing research

• Two set of commitments– Truth commitment (Product of research)– Responsibility of research actions (Process of research)

Like:• Harm done to humans, animals, environment• Research questions – priorities?

3

Research ethics.Changing ideals for researchers?

”The scientist pursues knowledge. He does not patent his discoveries, he does not exploit them for personal gain. He only demands a reasonable compensation that will ensure his capability of consentration, the inner calmness which conditions his research”.

• Otto Lous Mohr. (1952), Rector University of Oslo. Speech to new students.

4

1950-ties: “Ethics did not figure regularly in public discourse about science”

“Nowadays .. the ethics of science occupies .. Media .. energizes scholarly books, journals, conferences and curricula ..”

“Why must scientists become moreethically sensitive than they used to be?”

John Ziman Science, Dec.4 1998

5

Research ethics, who, where – how?

• Research ethics and standards of goodresearch activity.

• Three arenas of research ethics– Conventions, professional codes, good

scientific practice.– Public ethical committees

• The National Committee for Research Ethics in Science and Technology, NENT

– Field of professional inquiry: Studies and reflections of science.

Guidelines 2007http://www.etikkom.no/

6

Web recourses Ihttp://etikkom.no/en/In-English/

LibraryNational ethical committeesRecourses on research ethics

7

Web recources II. www.ntnu.no/ethics-portal

Topics and cases

Links to ethics activity at NTNU

8

Misconduct

• Integrity of research• Plagiarism – a current case• Co-authorship – what qualifies scientific authorship?

9

Scientific misconduct. What do we know ?June 2005

10

Scientific misconduct. What do we know ?

Meta study

2009

1% admit having “fabricated” or “falsified” data once

34% admit "questionable practices“

79% would report/challenge colleagues scientific misconduct

11

Poor research, mistake, dishonesty, fraud

Incorrect observationsPoor evidenceFlawed analysis Incorrect presentation of dataManipulating dataPlagiarismFalsificationFabricating

Unskilled

Swindler

12

Co-authorship - “Vancouver-convention”What qualifies to be a co-author of a scientific paper?

– Significant contributions • concept/ idea • data collection • analysis/interpretation

– Text• participating in writing • critical revision of article

– All authors • approve final version• take full responsibility of the content

13

All authors responsible for the content?

Clarify the contribution of participants. (as Nature for instance recommends)

– A.A. designed the experiment, BB assembled input data, CC ran the model and analysed output data, DD administrated the experiment and wrote the paper

14

Supervisor as co-author - should also comply with vancouver declaration

• Humanities: Supervisor seldom or never co-author • Natural sciences: Supervisor seldom or never NOT co-

author

Two phases of PhD project?• Phase I: Project leader/supervisor active in founding, designing,

defining problem definition, analytical strategy, and provides substantial guidance of the PhD student.

• Fase II: PhD student take control, becomes the expert (of a limited part of the project), collect data, carry out the analysis – and/or possibly wonder off in a new (possibly more fruitful) direction?

15

What is Plagiarism?

• Turning in someone else's work as your own • Copying words/phrases/sentences or ideas from

someone else without giving credit – failing to put a quotation in quotation marks– Changing words but copying the sentence

structure of a source without giving credit – Giving incorrect/insufficient information about

the source of a quotation

16

Science 96

2007

“Everyone cheats, it's not all that important”

2003

• 40% of students admitted plagiarizing written sources ..(like copying an internet text). 50% considered this as “trivial” cheating

• 22% admitted cheating in a “serous” way, like copying from another student on a test, using unauthorized notes or helping someone else to cheat on a test.

PlagiarismCase 1:students reports, assignments

17

case 2

• 15 lines copied• Unconsciously

18

Plagiarism: Case 3 Guttenberg - Putin

19

Case 4• Late 1980’ties. Ian Chalmers

discovered plagiarism working on a review paper.

• 2002 – Book pulled back, after an NTNU research recognize it as his own Ph.D work.

• Both cases - colleagues treating Kujak “tactfully”

• Chalmers – now editor of BMJ – writes about the story, September 2006.

Kujak

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569960/

20

Case 5– a PhD dissertation

Some elements from the discussion of this case- Book reference previous page- Basic common knowledge of the field- Not crucial for the contribution of the work

- Diversity of culture in disciplines- Quality of training of the student

21

Regress of reviews ….

Scientific committee reviewing Ph.D work as science

BI committee reviewing Ph.D work:Science or Fraud?

National commission: Scientific committee reviewing BI committee:

Ministry: Scientific committee reviewing National commission

22

PlagiarismReported common fallacies in PhD dissertations• Lack of competence (for instance in referring unpublished

work)• Copying presentation structure (like examples,

argumentative structure) • Re-using models of calculations without reference

• Avoiding common fallacies: Rule of thumb(1) understand what you want to present completely; and (2) explain the concepts, problems, issues from scratch using your own words and lines of arguments.