1 / 37

Ethical constraints

Ethical constraints. Toby Walsh 4C, Cork, Ireland 4c.ucc.ie/~tw/ethics/. Outline. Why bother with ethics? Ethics in the research cycle Funding Experiments Publication When things go wrong Whistle-blowing. Resources. Web 4c.ucc.ie/~tw/ethics Journals Science and Engineering Ethics

jana
Download Presentation

Ethical constraints

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Ethical constraints Toby Walsh 4C, Cork, Ireland 4c.ucc.ie/~tw/ethics/

  2. Outline • Why bother with ethics? • Ethics in the research cycle • Funding • Experiments • Publication • When things go wrong • Whistle-blowing

  3. Resources • Web • 4c.ucc.ie/~tw/ethics • Journals • Science and Engineering Ethics www.opragen.co.uk/SEE • Conferences • Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, Oct 5 2002, Cambridge (MA) • Courses • Check out your university • Ethics must be taught in all UK Masters by Research programs

  4. Why me? • I am not sure what qualifies me • I have faced a number of ethical dilemmas • But then so will you • I am neither angel nor hopefully great sinner

  5. A Day @ The Artificial Ethics (AE) Lab • Dr. MacIavelli arrives from Scotland to start a postdoc • Email arrives asking him to review a paper • Checks progress of his experiments • Goes for lunch with interview panel • Drafts new conference paper • Looks for a suitable conference to submit to • Clocks off early

  6. Why bother? • To protect and benefit • You • Science • Society

  7. Why bother? • To protect your own reputation • 3 most important qualities of a scientist • Reputation, reputation, reputation • A blackened reputation is rarely restored • Science is unforgiving

  8. Why bother? • Treat others like you would like to be treated • Get ahead by being the “nicest” person in your area! • Science is very “social” • Networking at conferences • Job offers, PC membership, …

  9. Why bother? • To protect science’s reputation • Science is largely self-regulated • We therefore enjoy considerable freedoms • But this requires us to apply high ethical standards

  10. Why bother? • To protect society’s interests • Society invests in research despite many other pressing needs • Society delegates many ethical issues to scientists • In return, society expects scientists to act in society’s best interests

  11. Ethics in the research cycle • Funding • Experiments • Data collection & presentation • Publication • Authorship • Plagiarism • Citation • Reviewing

  12. Ethics & funding • Who do you take money off? • Military or arms industry? • Tobacco companies? • Nuclear power industry? • “Nasty” multi-nationals? • Microsoft? • What do they require of you in return?

  13. Ethics & experiments • Human & animal experiments • Fortunately rare in CP • Many ethical safeguards in place • Your university will surely have an ethics committee to oversee such experiments Nonsense, as long as it is done ethically, animal testing in an invaluable scientific tool

  14. Ethics & experiments • Data collection & presentation • Fraud • Omission • Manipulation • Theft • First three almost always discovered • Science requires results to be reproducible Panel is currently investigating possible fraud in claims by Hendrik Schon (Bell Labs) to have built an organic transistor

  15. Ethics & publication • Where many of us face most of our ethical dilemmas! • Not surprisingly, science is all about being the first to publish an idea • Areas of concern • Authorship • Plagiarism • Citation • Reviewing

  16. Ethics & authorship • Who do you make co-author of your paper? • Colleague • Supervisor • Lab boss • Your friends • They’ll do same in return!

  17. Ethics & authorship • There exist a number of guidelines for co-authorship • European Science Foundation “… In the case of joint authors, each should have made a significant contribution to the creative or analytical process and each has to accept shared responsibility for the content of the resulting article or book. The concept of honorary or “ghost” authorships is inconsistent with good scientific practice…”

  18. Ethics & authorship • Yes, but does this mean I put my PhD supervisor down as co-author or not? • No hard and fast rules • It is often (but not always) the case that: • At the start of your PhD, you do. • Your supervisor asked the questions, pushed you in the right directions • At some point into your PhD/postdoc, you don’t. • For some, this comes before the end of their PhD • For others, this does not come till after their PhD work is in press in journals

  19. Ethics & authorship • How much does a colleague have to do to become a co-author? • Again, no hard and fast rules • My pragmatic advice • Err on the side of caution • Nothing more sure to end the working relationship • Ask their opinion • In addition, ask for your name to be removed when appropriate

  20. Ethics & authorship • Some tests • Have they read the paper? • Do they understand the paper? • If you took sick in the middle of the seminar, could they finish it?

  21. Ethics & authorship • What order do you list authors? • By “merit” • But this can be hard • And what about “equal” merit • Alphabetically • Common in a number of areas

  22. Ethics & authorship • My recommendation: • Invent an ordering scheme and stick to it • My scheme • Used to be, alphabetical • But recently [Colton, Bundy, Walsh 2000], … • Now it is, “you argue over where your names go, mine is in last place” • My name is always last so you can tell nothing about how little I did!

  23. Plagiarism • The presentation of someone else’s work as your own • In exams, cheating • In science, theft

  24. Failure to cite In severe cases, plagiarism In less severe cases, hinders careers In least severe cases, hurts & offends Citation is so easy & painless to do 1. D. Johnson : 10473 2. J. Ullman: 10087 3. A. Gupta: 7696 4. R. Milner: 7276 5. M. Garey: 6044 6. R. Rivest: 6038 7. J. Dongarra: 6024 8. R. Tarjan: 5875 9. L. Lamport: 5777 10. J. Smith: 5314 Citation

  25. Ethics & publication • Your are responsible to protect your intellectual property • For your funding body • For your university/company • For your own profit • Software patents are now possible • But will annoy your colleagues, …

  26. Ethics & reviewing • Blind reviewing • Allows for criticism without fear • Double blind reviewing • “Safeguards” against bias • Open reviewing • No one gets to hide!

  27. Ethics & reviewing • You have unpublished work on the same problem • You are obviously well qualified • As a courtesy, mention possible conflict to Editor/Program Chair • You already reviewed and rejected paper • Look for changes • Were previous reasons fatal? • Do different standards apply to this conference/journal/… ?

  28. Ethics & reviewing • This journal submission already appeared at a conference • Conferences don’t usually count as archival • Does it extend previous appearance? • An almost identical paper already appeared • Unless it was at a workshop, inform Editor/Chair • If it appeared with a different author, treat very seriously!

  29. Ethics & reviewing • You have worked with the author in the past • Recently • decline due to conflict of interest • A long time ago • if people knew both your identities, would they raise their eye-brows? • You work in the same institution as the author • Almost always decline

  30. Ethics & reviewing • Papers are sent for review in strictest confidence • You cannot share them with colleagues • You cannot admit to knowing their contents • You cannot work on extending their results Science is a race to publish, all the credit goes to the first to publish

  31. UK Nolan committee • Standards for public officials (e.g. grant reviewers) • Selflessness • Your decisions should be made solely in terms of public interest • Integrity • You should avoid financial or other obligations that will conflict • Objectivity • Your decisions should be entirely on merit • Accountability • You can be asked to justify your decisions • Openness • You should be as open as is possible, except where wider public intestest conflicts • Honesty • Leadership

  32. Whistle blowing • When things go wrong, what can you do? • Stop & be very sure of your ground • People’s careers are in balance here • Informally approach Editor/Chair • Phone is often better than email!

  33. What you wrote I have concerns about Walsh’s submission. It appears that it borrows techniques from my recent AAAI paper that I sent him last month. I am sure it was an oversight on his behalf not to reference me … How it was read There are serious problems with Walsh’s submission. It steals techniques from my recent AAAI paper. Walsh is obviously a thief as I sent him my AAAI paper last month … The perils of email

  34. Whistle blowing • University level • Formal procedures, committees, … • National level • NSF Office of Inspector General • NIH Office of Research Integrity (~10 proven cases/year) • Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty • Norwegian National Committee on Scientific Dishonesty • German DFG Ombudsman (actually three people) • …

  35. Enough of me • Let’s open this up! • What ethical dilemmas have you faced? • What situations concern you?

  36. Outline • Why bother with ethics? • Ethics in the research cycle • Funding • Experiments • Publication • When things go wrong • Whistle-blowing

  37. Conclusions • To misquote T.J. Watson • THINK ethically • Science depends on good ethics • They are few black and white decisions • Most are shades of grey • Don’t be afraid to seek advice • Supervisor • Mentor • …

More Related