ETHICS IN SCIENCE

1. ETHICS IN SCIENCE

2. Guidelines • Non-manipulative treatment of data • Willing to change hypothesis in face of new evidence • Avoids intimidation, rhetoric, propaganda, and misrepresentation • Does not appeal to authority

3. Guidelines • Communicates through peer reviewed journals of meetings • Need to unify disparate data • Avoids conflict of interest • Provides experimental details so work is reproducible by others skilled in the art • Assigns credit where credit is due • Does not falsify or manipulate data • Does not plagiarize works of others or claims as own • Socially aware

4. Application of Guidelines to MRL

5. Case histories • You are a graduate student working for a leading astronomer. Your job is to use a sophisticated radio telescope the astronomer designed for observing variable radio sources in the universe. After several weeks of analyzing data, you realize you have discovered a totally new kind of star -- one that provides evidence for the origin of the universe. Your boss congratulates you for your fine work, writes a major report on it, and wins a Nobel Prize. What should you do?

6. Case histories Being Scooped by Your Own Work • You are a young scientist who recently sent a paper based on your research in adolescent anorexia to an important scientific journal to be considered for publication. As is the custom, the journal's editor sends the paper out for review to other experts in the field. After several weeks he returns the paper to you, rejecting it because he claims that its reviewers found that "it contains several major errors and misinterpretations." Then, several months later, in another journal you find an article containing data almost identical to your own, and using sentences and descriptions similar to yours. What should you do?

7. Case histories A "Doctored" Doctorate? • You are a graduate student working on a Ph.D. in chemistry at a prestigious university. A good friend of yours who is a graduate student in the same lab reveals to you that he hasn't done all the experiments he said he did, and that a substantial part of his data has been doctored to make it look like it is based on original work. What should you do?

8. Case histories Preempting Theft • A scientist doing research on sickle cell disease finds a way to produce a chemical from genetically changed mice that reduces the symptoms of sickle cell disease in many of its victims. Because he recognizes that he could earn a lot of money if the chemical is produced commercially, he does not want to reveal some of the details of the procedure for production. He submits a paper for publication in which he deliberately includes an incorrect gene sequences. The paper is well written and plausible, and unless the referees attempt to clone the gene themselves, they would have no way of knowing of the deliberate error. When the paper is accepted for publication, the scientist will correct the error. Is the scientist justified in misrepresenting his data? --What if he withholds the proper sequence from the final publication?

9. Case histories Editorial Responsibility • You are editor of a prestigious scientific journal that is respected around the world for its timely, accurate reporting. A story is "leaked" to you by a confidential source that provides strong evidence that a major scientist working on HIV (the AIDS virus) has reported false data in his experiments. What should you do?

10. Case histories Science for Who? • You are a scientist at a major university who has discovered a chemical broth that makes it easy to grow the virus that causes AIDS in a laboratory flask. What will you do? --share the recipe immediately with all laboratories that need it for AIDS research? --or publish first? --or solicit offers from pharmaceutical companies who might want to market the broth?

11. Case histories Using Nazi Data • During the early part of World War II the Nazi's lost many pilots during the Battle of Britain in the icy waters of the English Channel. On land large numbers of Germans froze on the Russian front. • The Nazi's decided to start cold experiments at Dachau concentration camp in mid-August of 1942. They conducted about 400 different experiments using approximately 300 prisoners. • The experiments involved leaving the people in vats of icy water for hours or in the freezing outdoors. The Nazi's measured their changes in blood, urine, spinal fluid, muscle reflexes, heart action and body temperature. • When the patients' temperatures dropped below 79.7 degrees F, various ways of rewarming were tried. Rapid rewarming proved most effective. Slow rewarming was not very effective and alcohol actually hastened cooling. Up to 100 prisoners died during these experiments. • Approximately 1000 people die of exposure to cold in the U.S. every year. No current data is available as complete or as accurate as that of the Nazi's. It was determined that the Nazi method of rapid rewarming in hot water be used as the treatment of choice by the Air-Sea Rescue Services of the U.S. Armed Forces.

12. Case histories Renegade Research? • Thomas Creighton, a 33-year-old mechanic, was dying of heart disease. The surgeons at the University of Arizona performed a heart transplant on him, but the new heart was rejected. • Instead of waiting two hours to use the approved Jarvik-7 artificial heart, they implanted an unauthorized artificial heart. • Two hours after the surgery, the doctors removed the artificial heart and implanted a second human heart. This second heart transplant also failed. Mr. Creighton died forty-six hours after the first surgery. The Food and Drug Administration investigated, but took no action against the surgeons involved. • If the doctors were found guilty of performing an unauthorized experiment on a patient, what action should be taken against them? Would the action be the same if the patient had not died?

13. Case histories To Medicate or Not to Medicate • Terry Kelly received a National Institute of Mental Health grant for research in the Western Tropics. As part of her personal gear, she took along a considerable amount of medication, which her physician had prescribed for use, should Kelly find herself in an active malaria region. Later, after settling into a village, Kelly became aware that many of the local people were quite ill with malaria. • Kelly's Dilemma: Since she had such a large supply of medication, much more than she needed for her personal use, should she distribute the surplus to her hosts? • Kelly's Decision • Kelly decided not to give any medication to the villagers who were exhibiting symptoms of malaria, even though she had a considerable surplus in her personal supply. She reasoned that since the medication did not confer permanent immunity to the disease and because she would not be present to provide medication during future outbreaks of the disease, it was more important to allow affected villagers to develop their own resistance to malaria "naturally.

14. Case histories INDUSTRIAL SPONSORSHIP OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH • Sandra was excited about being accepted as a graduate student in the laboratory of Dr. Frederick, a leading scholar in the field, and she embarked on her assigned research project eagerly. But after a few months she began to have misgivings. Though part of Dr. Frederick's work was supported by federal grants, the project on which she was working was totally supported by a grant from a single company. She had known this before coming to the lab and had not thought it would be a problem. But she had not known that Dr. Frederick also had a major consulting agreement with the company. She also heard from other graduate students that when it came time to publish her work, any paper would be subject to review by the company to determine if any of her work was patentable.

15. Case historiesA CONFLICT OF INTEREST • John, a third-year graduate student, is participating in a department-wide seminar where students, postdocs, and faculty members discuss work in progress. An assistant professor prefaces her comments by saying that the work she is about to discuss is sponsored by both a federal grant and a biotechnology firm for which she consults. In the course of the talk John realizes that he has been working on a technique that could make a major contribution to the work being discussed. But his faculty advisor consults for a different, and competing, biotechnology firm.

16. Case histories The Selection of Data • Deborah, a third-year graduate student, and Kathleen, a postdoc, have made a series of measurements on a new experimental semiconductor material using an expensive neutron source at a national laboratory. When they get back to their own laboratory and examine the data, they get the following data points. A newly proposed theory predicts results indicated by the curve. • During the measurements at the national laboratory, Deborah and Kathleen observed that there were power fluctuations they could not control or predict. Furthermore, they discussed their work with another group doing similar experiments, and they knew that the other group had gotten results confirming the theoretical prediction and was writing a manuscript describing their results. • In writing up their own results for publication, Kathleen suggests dropping the two anomalous data points near the abscissa (the solid squares) from the published graph and from a statistical analysis. She proposes that the existence of the data points be mentioned in the paper as possibly due to power fluctuations and being outside the expected standard deviation calculated from the remaining data points. "These two runs," she argues to Deborah, "were obviously wrong."

17. A Selection of Data