Smiljko Ašperger

Hrčak - Portal of scientific journals of Croatia

LETTER TO THE EDITOREthics in Science – Unconscientious ScientistsSmiljko A{pergerCroatian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Zrinski trg 11, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia(E-mail: asperger@hazu.hr)INTRODUCTIONScientific research activities are in general built on trustthat the results published by other researchers are per-formed without bias, i.e., correctly and honestly, consid-ering primarily the facts. Such scientific behaviour en-abled the enormous scientific productivity, which result-ed in the fast progress of mankind.Misconduct in research is a serious obstacle to thisprogress but, fortunately, misconduct tends to be a uniquerather than a routine event in most scientific institutions.It is therefore to be expected that scientific institutionsare not prepared and do not know how to deal with sci-entific misconduct. In the USA, the Office of ResearchIntegrity (ORI) is prepared to provide technical assistanceto any institution that wishes to respond to an allegationof research misconduct through its Rapid Response Tech-nical Assistance Program.Efforts to respond to scientific misconduct and pro-mote responsible conduct in research are being made byseveral countries around the world. Web sites have beendeveloped by organizations in some countries to deal withthese subjects. Some articles describing typical miscon-duct cases can be found in the ORI Newsletter.MISCONDUCT IN RESEARCH CAN OCCURIN MOST PRESTIGIOUS WORLD INSTITUTIONSNobody is perfect. In ethical sense, scientists are not per-fect either, but the public expects the highest standardsjust from them. Extreme cases of irresponsible behaviourof scientists are fabrications of scientific results, falsifi-cations and plagiarism are rare, though they can occureven in leading world institutions. This, e.g., happenedin 1955, during the stay of the author of this article at theUniversity College London where a young lecturer, whomthe University considered excellent, published »experi-mental results« which he never performed. As a good theo-retician, he anticipated how his reaction system shouldbehave and he published the fabricated results wishingto have as many publications as possible. But, his col-leagues in the lab did not see him actually perform thedescribed experiments, and he could not provide any ev-idence of having done them. He had to leave the Univer-sity College London. I did not hear about him for severalyears. Then, I heard that he got a position at a minor sci-entific institution in the USA. Some 30 years later I methim at an international chemical conference, and we talk-ed. I tried to appear as relaxed as possible, having a feel-ing that he had suffered enough and that, after so manyyears, it was time for oblivion.Such events are more frequent than we usually think.One example came to light a couple of years ago when itwas discovered that, according to Sophie L. Rovner, Chem.Eng. News, April 26, 2004, p. 34, a Bell Labs physicist(the Journal quotes his full name) working in the field ofmolecular electronics, had apparently fabricated data.In further discussion of ethics in science, S. L. Rov-ner made a most important and very concrete point tell-ing us that »what you publish, what you present, can re-ally impact the working lives of other people«. This iswhy the ethical responsibility of a scientist is of paramountimportance.In the article entitled »Scientists behaving badly« byB. C. Martinson, M. S. Anderson and R. de Vries, Na-ture 435 (2005) 737 (13 references), the authors pointedout that »our evidence suggests that mundane »regular«misbehaviours present greater threats to the scientificenterprise than those caused by high-profile misconductcases such as fraud.«In 2000, the US Office of Science and Technology Pol-icy defined research misconduct as »fabrication, falsifi-cation, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or review-CROATICA CHEMICA ACTACCACAA 78 (4) A23¿A26 (2005)ing research, or reporting research results.« Findings of theabove-mentioned authors have shown that US scientistsare involved in a range of behaviours extending far be-yond fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism. An anony-mous survey, done in 2002 by B. C. Martinson, sponsor-ed by the National Institute of Health, involved scientistsat the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis and St.Paul. Survey respondents were asked whether or not theywere engaged in questionable research practices. In thearticle, Naughty Scientists, Chem. Eng. News, June 27,2005, p. 50, the author, Ron Dagani, concludes that themodern scientist faces intense competition and is bur-dened by various social and managerial demands. Thesedemands create pressure on the scientist to accept com-promises of scientific integrity.The report of Martinson at al. in the mentioned arti-cle in Nature is based on anonymous answers of 3247US scientists, aged between 35 and 44, who admittedbeing involved in actions regarded as misbehaviour. Fur-thermore, it is very probable that the scientists’ behav-iour was worse than Martinson et al. reported, becausethe worst offenders were probably reluctant to partici-pate, in spite of the fact that the survey was anonymous,conclude the authors in Nature. Many researchers admit-ted that they were engaged in questionable activitieswithin the previous three years, which can be ranked assanctionable. Some of the questions and answers, con-sidered most interesting by the author of this article, arequoted:• Falsifying or »cooking« research data, – about0.3 %• Using another’s ideas without permission or givingdue credit, – about 1.3 %• Unauthorized use of confidential information re-garding one’s own research, – about 1.5%• Failing to present data that conflict one’s own pre-vious research, – about 6 %• Changing the design, methodology or results of astudy in response to pressure from a funding source, –about 15 %• Publishing the same data or results in two or morepublications, – about 5 %• Inappropriately assigning authorship credit, – about10 %• Withholding details of methodology or results, –about 10 %It could have been observed that the scientists tendto back away under pressure from a funding source.HANDLING MISCONDUCT – ALLEGATIONSThe most useful advice comes from medical circles. ThePublic Health Service provides an overview of respons-es to allegations of research misconduct in biomedicalresearch or research training. The role of two major fig-ures in the process are discussed first – the »whistle-blower« and the respondent. In principle, researchmisconduct tends to be a unique rather than a routineevent. This is the reason why very few institutions haveany significant experience in responding to allegations.Because of the likelihood of retaliation against thewhistleblower, the Public Health Service regulation obli-gates institutions to protect »to the maximum extent pos-sible the privacy of those who in good faith report ap-parent misconduct«. According to the Office of Re-search Integrity, »A good faith allegation is made withthe honest belief that scientific misconduct may have oc-curred. An allegation »is not in good faith if it is madewith reckless disregard for wilful ignorance of facts thatwould disprove the allegation.« Allegations are made tothe institution where the research misconduct has occur-red. The institution’s deciding official usually makes thefinal assessment. If this assessment differs from that ofthe investigation committee, the deciding official (usu-ally the dean of the faculty) needs to explain, in the writ-ten form, the reasons for rendering a decision differentfrom that of the investigation committee, and forwardthe report to ORI.Many problems were encountered in scientific prac-tice and American Congress created the Commission onResearch Integrity in 1993, in response to continuingcontroversy concerning the apparent inability of the sci-entific community and the Federal Government to dealadequately with misconduct in scientific research. TheCommission's 12 members, chaired by Dr. KennethRyan of the Harvard University Medical School, wereselected so as to include scientists, research misconductinvestigators, and administrators of research institutions,attorneys, and ethicists. The Commission held publicmeetings monthly from June 1994 through October 1995,primarily in the Washington, D.C., area, and public hear-ings were held in San Francisco, Chicago, and Boston.These meetings brought up a range of opinions regard-ing weaknesses in the current institutional and federalpolicies and practice related to ethics and misconduct.Suggestions of improvements are of special importance.It was concluded that individual scientists, research insti-tutions and professional societies have the primary re-sponsibility for preserving research integrity and prose-cuting research misconduct. The role of the FederalGovernment should complement and enhance that of in-stitutions and societies, and federal intervention shouldoccur only when institutional processes fail. It is saidthat developing and disseminating clear standards of be-haviour best foster research integrity, whether by profes-sional organizations or by research institutions or both.These standards should be reinforced through educationat all stages of scientific development, and at all levelsof research administration.A24 LETTER TO THE EDITORCroat. Chem. Acta 78 (4) A23–A26 (2005)Recommendations of the Ryan CommissionThe commission recommends that professional societieseach adopt a code of ethics in research and encouragetheir members to use these codes as a framework for con-sidering emerging ethical issues in science. In addition,professional societies should consider initiating activitiesthat will further promote the ethical conduct in science.It is also suggested that the societies should adopt astatement about integrity and misconduct in research,and teach scientific integrity through conferences, semi-nars, workshops, and classes at all educational levels.It is also suggested that the professional societiesshould develop roasters of professionals from which in-stitutions can draw unbiased members for investigatorybodies that consider allegations of misconduct. Finally,societies that publish journals might encourage publica-tion of articles on research ethics and criteria for respon-sible authorship and publication practice.Editors of scientific journals have a duty to reportallegations of misconduct to the relevant institutions, toassist in the resolution of allegations of misconduct and,where appropriate, to correct the literature by publishingretractions that are clearly linked to the fraudulent publi-cations.The 46 pages Report of the Ryan Commission (seeon Internet, under Ryan Commission Report) was ad-dressed to The Secretary of Health and Human Services,The House Committee on Commerce and to The SenateCommittee on Labor and Human Resources.Everybody engaged in problems of ethics and mis-conduct in science should study this Report.ETHICAL GUIDELINES TO PUBLICATION OFCHEMICAL RESEARCHAmerican Chemical Society(Contact Internet under the above title)Editors of the Publications Division of the American Che-mical Society revised the guidelines embodied in thisDocument in January 2000. Editors of journals publishedby the American Chemical Society presented a set of eth-ical guidelines for persons engaged in the publication ofchemical research, specifically for: Editors, Authors, andManuscript Reviewers. It is believed that high ethicalstandards are so vital to science that a definition of thosestandards should be communicated to all concerned.Ethical Obligations of Editors of Scientific Journals. –This section is divided in 9 paragraphs. Paragraph 1,e.g., states (in shortened form) that an editor should giveunbiased consideration to all manuscripts offered forpublication, judging each on its merits only. An editormay, however, take into account relationships of amanuscript under consideration to other previously orconcurrently offered by the same author(s).Ethical Obligations of Authors. – This section has 11paragraphs, but let us quote only paragraphs 1 and 4 forillustration:Paragraph 1: An author’s central obligations are topresent an accurate account of the research performed aswell as an objective discussion of its significance.Paragraph 4: An author should cite those publica-tions that have been influential in determining the natureof the reported work and that will guide the readerquickly to the earlier work that is essential for under-standing the present investigation. …..An author isobliged to perform a literature search to find, and thencite, the original publications that describe closely re-lated work. For critical materials used in the work,proper citation of sources should also be made whenthese were supplied by a non-author.Ethical obligations of reviewers of manuscripts. – Thissection has 11 paragraphs and should be studied by ev-ery researcher. In this way, many potential conflicts ofinterests would be avoided.Educational Program on Responsible Conduct ofResearch in CroatiaIt is generally believed that excellent science follows ex-cellent ethics – bad science follows bad ethics. There-fore, by neglecting teaching ethics at colleges studentswill receive incomplete education.The author of this article talked to colleagues at theFaculty of Science of the University of Zagreb. It appearsthat presently there are no activities (lectures, seminars,etc.), in which scientific ethics would be taught to stu-dents at the undergraduate or graduate level. But, in thepast there were at least some activities in this respect. Ac-cording to a private communication from ProfessorNenad Trinajsti}, the late professor of physical chemistryat the mentioned Faculty, Bo`o Te`ak, held in 1962/63 atwo-semester post-graduate course (25+0; 25+0), underthe title Methods and Techniques in Research. His lec-tures were partly concerned with ethics in science. E.g.,he stressed that every research has roots in the past, there-fore earlier results must be quoted, which contributes tothe mutual confidence among scientists and is morallyjustified; he did not use the term scientific ethics but itwas obvious that he talked about ethical behaviour of sci-entists. Professor Te`ak held a similar course for under-graduate students, as well. After Professor Te`ak’s deathsin 1980, Professor Trinajsti} took over his lectures for ashort time at both undergraduate and graduate levels. Af-terwards, the associate professor \ur|ica Te`ak startedher lectures on informatics, while Professor Trinajsti} de-livered only a few lectures on the methodology of re-search, talking shortly on misconduct in research, warn-ing, e.g., students that, according to the book by A. Kohn,False Prophets, Blackwell, Oxford, 1986, the ethical tres-LETTER TO THE EDITOR A25Croat. Chem. Acta 78 (4) A23–A26 (2005)passers will be penalized sooner or later, at least by losingtheir prestige in the chemical circles.It appears that there are currently no formal lectureson scientific ethics to students at the leading chemicalfaculty of the University of Zagreb – the Faculty of Sci-ence. According to the recommendation of the RyanCommission Report, addressed to The House of Repre-sentatives, Washington, D.C., on November 3, 1996, in-tegration of the explicit teaching of ethics of science intothe classroom, laboratory and other research sites shouldbe encouraged.Regarding ethics in science and authorships, thebook by A. Simoni}, Znanost (Science), University ofRijeka and Vitagraf, Rijeka, Croatia, 1999, pp. 483(ISBN 953–6059–28–2), is recommended.The Author’s Personal Experience RegardingEthics in Science(at his Alma Mater, the University of Zagreb)Croatia declared its independence from communist (»so-cialist«) Yugoslavia in 1991 and, after several months offighting, was recognized by the European Communityand other countries in 1992. Thus, the author of this arti-cle lived the greatest part of his scientific activity in thecommunist system, where physical private property wasnot protected. Regarding intellectual property, the situa-tion was not defined, but the European and world normsand standards were actually followed, since the majorityof Croatian scientists were educated in the United Statesor at the leading European universities. Indeed, the au-thor’s personal experience regarding ethics in sciencewas satisfactory, with only one exception when two ofhis collaborators, working on his research project (en-dorsed and financed by the Ministry of Science of theRepublic of Croatia) published an unfinished and incon-clusive part of this project, without permission of the re-search-project author. This misconduct was an exceptionand could not change the author’s belief that the scien-tific ethics in Croatia, even during the communist sys-tem, was satisfactory.As we have seen, some leading chemical journalsfound it necessary to discuss ethical problems in science.There is a well-known saying that it is very importantwhat was said, but it is even more important who said it.Consequently, scientific institutions should invite theirleading scientists, professors of high scientific reputa-tion, highly respected for their integrity, to talk to stu-dents on ethics in science.It is to be hoped that this article will stimulate dis-cussions on ethics in science and thereby contribute tothe scientific progress of Croatia. Finally, the author ofthis article would like to suggest to the Editorial Boardof Croatica Chemica Acta to include ethical guidelinesinto the journal’s Instructions for Authors.A26 LETTER TO THE EDITORCroat. Chem. Acta 78 (4) A23–A26 (2005)

Ethics in Science – Unconscientious Scientists

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Hrčak - Portal of scientific journals of Croatia