Being a successful scientist: the
importance of responsible conduct
Nancy Ip
Emilie Marcus
Guoqiang Bi
Susan Amara
Hong Kong University of Science & Technology
Cell Press
University of Science & Technology of China
University of Pittsburgh
Why is Responsible Conduct Important
in Science?
Science, in general:
Î Ensures
respect is maintained when working with humans
and animals
Î Ensures
data can be trusted by key decision makers as
many key public policies are based on scientific data
Î Ensures
trust and support from society, and credibility for
the scientific community, as a whole
z
Technological innovation in this day and age is
advancing at breakneck speed. It is up to scientists to
wield new tools in an ethical manner within the bounds
of social morality and in the interests of humanity
Why is Responsible Conduct Important
in Science?
Individuals:
Î
Establishes credibility ─ essential for a successful
career as a scientific researcher
Î
Honest reporting builds trust among peers and
within scientific communities
Î
Encourages openness, data-sharing, co-operation,
and collaboration
Core Areas For Ethical Conduct
Office of Research Integrity ORI
─ ORI (Dept of Health and Human Services in the US) emphasizes
bolstering scientific integrity through education on research
integrity and responsible conduct of research
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Data acquisition management, sharing, and ownership
Mentor-Trainee relationships
Publication practices and responsible authorship
Peer-review
Collaborative science
Human/ Animal subjects
Research misconduct
Conflict of interest and commitment
Why Do Researchers Commit Scientific Misconduct?
Career pressure (“publish or perish”)
Î
Competition for positions/ promotions: institutions review a
scientist’s publication record for a job or promotion
Î
Competition for funding: a strong publication record in high
impact-factor journals assures of continuous funding support
Î
Pressure to out-do peers (race to publish first)
Prospect of wealth, fame, recognition, or other forms of
perceived success (e.g. financial rewards for highly prolific
researchers) may lead to conflict of interest, manipulation of
data, etc.
Î
Ethical research conducted for the advancement of truth and
knowledge must always be separated from personal motives and
incentives
Why Do Researchers Commit Scientific Misconduct?
Ease of misinterpretation
Ambiguous results from “noise” or extraneous
data may cause a researcher to misinterpret the
results to fit a hypothesis
Î Ethical science MUST be objective; without bias
Î
Laziness
Î
“Borrowing” from another’s work without
conducting any themselves
Frustration
Guidelines on Ethics and Responsible Conduct
z
z
z
z
Since its inception, the Society for Neuroscience (SfN) has
developed policies and guidelines for those engaged in the
communication of research.
Through ongoing efforts, SfN established policies on:
Î
Responsible conduct in scientific communication
Î
Responsible conduct in the use of humans/ animals
Î
Dealing with allegations of misconduct
SfN continually updates its guidelines based on current trends
and practices
In 2008, SfN established the Responsible Conduct Working
Group (RCWG) as the existing guidelines were deemed
insufficient to meet current needs
Composition of the RCWG
RCWG, a volunteer group, is comprised of leading
scientists from eminent academic institutions
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
David Van Essen (Chair, Washington University, St. Louis)
Christopher Henderson (Columbia University)
Nancy Ip (HKUST)
Sabine Kastner (Princeton University)
Peggy Mason (University of Chicago)
John Maunsell (Harvard University)
Jeffrey Rothstein (Johns Hopkins University)
Gordon Shepherd (Yale University)
Michael Zigmond (University of Pittsburgh)
RCWG: Mission and Aims
z
Mission:
Î To
review and recommend changes to existing SfN guidelines
Î To create a single policy to oversee issues related to
responsible conduct in scientific communication
z
Aims:
Î To
identify areas not covered by existing guidelines
Î To address the following issues:
z
z
z
z
Increasing number (and complexity) of cases of scientific
misconduct
Issues related to digital data and the use of the Internet
Sharing of reagents, resources, and data
Inadequate awareness of current guidelines and policies
RCWG: Action Plan
z
Review existing policy components and determined
which would be: included, modified, or deleted
z
Review existing procedures – both written and those in
practice
z
Discuss inadequacy and limitations of current
procedures, and revise these accordingly
z
Develop set of recommendations based on current
trends and practices and revise policies to reflect realworld scenarios
RCWG: Outcome
z
Revised guidelines entitled “Responsible Conduct
Regarding Scientific Communication” is culmination
of a 2-year team effort composed of face-to-face
meetings, conference calls, and emails
z
Revised guidelines were approved by the Council of
the Society for Neuroscience on 20 July 2010
z
Revised guidelines now drive SfN’s ethics and
publishing policies
z
Provided to the Chinese Academy of Sciences as
reference
“Responsible Conduct Regarding Scientific Communication”
z
The guidelines are split into the following sections:
1.
2.
Authors of Scientific Communications
Î
Detailed guidelines for authors of scientific publications
Î
Specifically pertains to data (validity, originality, etc),
and the manner in which it is obtained especially if
human/ animal subjects are used
Î
Authorship based on substantial intellectual contribution
Reviewers of Manuscripts
Î
Journal reviewers are obligated to remain fair and
impartial when reviewing manuscripts, keeping all
information confidential at all times; thorough & timely
Î
Guidelines also aim to protect reviewers’ anonymity
unless a reviewer requests disclosure
“Responsible Conduct Regarding Scientific Communication”
3. Editors of Scientific Journals
Î
Editors of SfN publications are obligated to review,
and accept/reject manuscripts with minimal bias
Î
Editors must always provide authors with a written
rationale for editorial decisions
4. Communications Outside the Scientific Literature
Î
Researchers are encouraged to communicate their
results to the lay public. However, care must be taken
to ensure accuracy, and release of data to public
domain must not substitute publishing in peerreviewed journals
Ethics as a Shared Responsibility
z General:
Î Science
is conducted interactively and collaboratively by
a community of scientists
Î Scientific
community bears burden of acting responsibly
to ensure the integrity of science
Î All
within the community are obligated to identify and
stamp out any unethical behaviour or abuse/ misuse of
the system
Î Scientific
community must also uphold responsibility of
training the next generation of scientists in the philosophy
of scientific practice (as much as the actual knowledge
and skills)
z
Ethics as a Shared Responsibility
Ethics is obligatory for researchers, institutions, journal
reviewers, and publication committees
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Researchers MUST adhere to strict ethics guidelines. Any
suspicion of misconduct must be reported to the proper
authorities
Institutions engaged in research MUST have effective
procedures for dealing with scientific misconduct and
mistreatment of animals/humans
Journal reviewers MUST ensure data in journals they
review make sense
Editors MUST ensure that publication decisions are fair
Publication committees MUST undertake every allegation
of misconduct seriously but fairly, and those deemed
guilty must serve the consequences
Handling Allegations of Misconduct
from John Maunsell
Handling Allegations of Misconduct
from John Maunsell