Why is ethics in science important?




Science and scientific methodology have significant
impact on the society
New knowledge and new technology create new ethic
challenges
Worries about scientific misconduct having taken place
The history has repeatedly shown... . . . .
UoO’s 10 Commandments
1. You shall be guided by the rights and duties spelled out in the Law of Academic
Freedom.
2. You shall know that honesty is an absolute requisite for scientific work.
3. You shall act in accordance with ethical guidelines for your area of research.
4. You shall give due recognition to colleagues and sources that have aided your own
investigation.
5. You shall, if at all possible, participate in collegial analysis and communication of
methods and results.
6. You shall be prepared to account for all means and resources that you have received.
7. You shall ensure that your scientific results are solid enough to justify your conclusions
and that the raw data/materials on which your publications are based remain intact
and available.
8. You shall adhere to the rules that govern publications in your field.
9. You shall strive to be level-headed when you report your results; consequential
considerations should include both potential benefits and would-be ethical dilemmas.
10. You shall maintain your scientific competency and also seek to improve it.
Academic integrity
and use of bibliographic sources
All academic texts are built on the work/text of others
•
•
•
Read the text/literature on the topic carefully.
Put your work into a broader scientific context.
Reward the works of others, by citing and referring
to them in a correct way.
Honesty, honesty, honesty!
 Honesty in your presentation. You shall exactly present
what you have found, not what you hope you have found.
 You shall indicate precisely on which points you are
uncertain, but still want to present them for scientific (not
personal) reasons.
 You shall give references to literature or other published
material, together with information from peers.
 You shall not claim your find as new, if you know that
someone else has already published the find.
 If your experiments or observations fail or cannot be
repeated, you are violating the decree of hypothetical
deductive science, and nothing can save your hypothesis
unless you can discover the reasons for why the
experiments or observations failed.
Plagiarism
Theodor Kittelsen
What is the difference between citation and
plagiarism?
• If you include a text or picture, or what else, from another source,
you are obliged to refer who has originally written it. This is not
plagiarism, but honesty.
• But if you fail to refer, so that it seems that you are the creator,
then it is plagiarism.
 Text other has written.
 Cut and paste.
 Illustrations other has made.
 Data material other has collected.
 Models other has developed.
• In simple terms: If you put your name on things that is not yours or
intentionally miss to refer who is the creator, it is plagiarism.
Examples
•
Senator Joseph Biden
In 1988 senator Joseph Biden withdrew from the
Democratic Presidential nomination campaign due
to accusations of plagiarism in speeches and at law
school. Biden attributed the plagiarism to
misunderstandings of the ref & cite system, and
honest mistakes.
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden_presidential_campaign,_19
88
•
Karl-Theodor, baron of Guttenberg
In 2011 the German Minister of Defence resigned
after being convicted of plagiarism and stripped of
his PhD-title from the University of Bayreuth. ”K-T”
admitted to copying from others works by mistake
due to his busy schedule. Medias new nickname?
Baron zu Googleberg, the minister of cut and paste.
www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/01/german-defenceminister-resigns-plagiarism
Scientific fraud – walk on the wild side
Milena Penkowa
Jon Sudbø
Painting: Theodor Kittelsen
J. Sudbø
Plagiarisms is scientific fraud, but fraud
can be more than that.
• Science can be wrong, but not necessarily
fraud. Many well known scientists have
introduced wrong theories based on
misunderstood observations or experiments,
but they are not cheaters.
• However, they become cheaters if they stick
to their theories and/or try to justify their
original hypothesis by manipulated
experiments or observations.
Many roads to scientific fraud
 Fixing observations or experiments so they better match your intensions.
 Publishing results that do not exist.
 Correcting figures in tables so the statistics improve the results.
 Citation of literature or other sources that do not exist, are formally
unavailable, are not published (unless publishers written permission).
 Introducing co-authors that do not exist.
 Stealing other results (e.g. peer reviewers, supervisors or congress
participants).
 The field of scientific fraud encompasses a plethora of fake experiments and
observations, fake references, fake permissions, fake laboratories, fake people,
fake field work etc., etc.
Not recommended!
• Publishing the same or very similar data in
two or more journals.
• Unnecessary splitting of coherent scientific
results in two or more articles.
Many reasons for scientific fraud
• To hang on in the publishing race. It is tempting to take
some short cuts.
• To improve your scientific status and CV.
• To publish some revolutionary new things, ensuring
your fame.
• To get money for your projects.
• Psychological reasons.
• Etc.
Co-authors
Towards the end of a major scientific work the researcher often becomes
subject to an incredible degree of attention from their peers. I wonder
what they are looking for? Text OD Lærum, drawing Inge Morild. Source:
Tidsskrift for Den norske legeforening.
International Committee Of Medical Journal Editors
“The Vancouver Rules”
To be considered as co-author, a researcher have
contributed significantly to:
• planning, design, data collection or analysis
and interpretation of data
• preparation of the manuscript or critical
revision of contents
• approval of the final manuscript version.
Those who do not meet these criteria should normally not
be icluded, but acknowledged in a separate paragraph in the
end of the article.
The sequence of authors
• First author: Whoever has done the major work, e.g., performed
most experiments and/or field work, written most of the
manuscript, done most of the corrections. In master and PhD
works, the candidate should be the first author of at least some of
the articles constituting the thesis.
• Last author: Whoever has given the main idea to and leaded the
project. This may be the main supervisor for the master or PhD
candidate.
• Corresponding author: The author that has e-mail contact with the
editor of the actual journal where the manuscript has been
delivered. This may be the first or the last author, or not.
• Mid authors: Those who have contributed significant to the work
and fulfill the Vancouver Rules. They may be listed in alphabetical
order.
Honorable author
I know the editor of a
prestigious journal. If I
become the corresponding
author I can help you …
… really a bad thing, but can
occasionally speed up the
publishing procedure.
The helpful professor
Good links
• https://www.etikkom.no/FBIB/Temaer/Redeli
ghet-og-kollegialitet/Fusk-og-plagiering/
• http://tidsskriftet.no/article/2969232/
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P
MC3142758/