Avoiding twisted pixels: ethical guidelines for the appropriate use and manipulation of scientific digital images

Digital imaging has provided scientists with new opportunities to acquire and manipulate data using techniques that were difficult or impossible to employ in the past. Because digital images are easier to manipulate than film images, new problems have emerged. One growing concern in the scientific community is that digital images are not being handled with sufficient care. The problem is twofold: (1) the very small, yet troubling, number of intentional falsifications that have been identified, and (2) the more common unintentional, inappropriate manipulation of images for publication. Journals and professional societies have begun to address the issue with specific digital imaging guidelines. Unfortunately, the guidelines provided often do not come with instructions to explain their importance. Thus they deal with what should or should not be done, but not the associated ‘why’ that is required for understanding the rules. This article proposes 12 guidelines for scientific digital image manipulation and discusses the technical reasons behind these guidelines. These guidelines can be incorporated into lab meetings and graduate student training in order to provoke discussion and begin to bring an end to the culture of ‘‘data beautification’’.12 month embargo; published 22 June 2010This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]

A Comparison of Iron Oxide Particles and Silica Particles for Tracking Organ Recellularization

Reseeding of decellularized organ scaffolds with a patient's own cells has promise for eliminating graft versus host disease. This study investigated whether ultrasound imaging or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can track the reseeding of murine liver scaffolds with silica-labeled or iron-labeled liver hepatocytes. Mesoporous silica particles were created using the Stober method, loaded with Alexa Flour 647 fluorophore, and conjugated with protamine sulfate, glutamine, and glycine. Fluorescent iron oxide particles were obtained from a commercial source. Liver cells from donor mice were loaded with the silica particles or iron oxide particles. Donor livers were decellularized and reperfused with silica-labeled or iron-labeled cells. The reseeded livers were longitudinally analyzed with ultrasound imaging and MRI. Liver biopsies were imaged with confocal microscopy and scanning electron microscopy. Ultrasound imaging had a detection limit of 0.28 mg/mL, while MRI had a lower detection limit of 0.08 mg/mL based on particle weight. The silica-loaded cells proliferated at a slower rate compared to iron-loaded cells. Ultrasound imaging, MRI, and confocal microscopy underestimated cell numbers relative to scanning electron microscopy. Ultrasound imaging had the greatest underestimation due to coarse resolution compared to the other imaging modalities. Despite this underestimation, both ultrasound imaging and MRI successfully tracked the longitudinal recellularization of liver scaffolds.US Military AcademyOpen access journalThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]

Avoiding Twisted Pixels: Ethical Guidelines for the Appropriate Use and Manipulation of Scientific Digital Images

Digital imaging has provided scientists with new opportunities to acquire and manipulate data using techniques that were difficult or impossible to employ in the past. Because digital images are easier to manipulate than film images, new problems have emerged. One growing concern in the scientific community is that digital images are not being handled with sufficient care. The problem is twofold: (1) the very small, yet troubling, number of intentional falsifications that have been identified, and (2) the more common unintentional, inappropriate manipulation of images for publication. Journals and professional societies have begun to address the issue with specific digital imaging guidelines. Unfortunately, the guidelines provided often do not come with instructions to explain their importance. Thus they deal with what should or should not be done, but not the associated ‘why’ that is required for understanding the rules. This article proposes 12 guidelines for scientific digital image manipulation and discusses the technical reasons behind these guidelines. These guidelines can be incorporated into lab meetings and graduate student training in order to provoke discussion and begin to bring an end to the culture of “data beautification”