Research ethics

1. Research ethics

2. Freedom, responsibility and universalityif science • Freedomofmovement, association, expression and communication for scientists • Equitable access to data, information and research materials • Responsibility for the research practicewithhonesty and integrity, methods and resultreportedaccurate, orderly, timely and open. • Impartial and fair in assessingotherworks • Respectful and considerateto human subjects and animals as well as environmental impact

3. Good research practice • Regulatory systems for scientists: • Laws, statutes, ordinances • Authorities´regulations an ddirectives • General consel • Conventions • Guidlines • Declarations, resolutions and statements • Recomendations, opinions and statements • Ethicscodes

4. Biologic research with animals Use laboratory animals? Ethic problem: are animals ethical objects that needs protection in a moral sense? Are animals right-holders? Intrinsic value vs instrumental value Evaluations and comparsions between benefits for humans and distress for the laboratory animals

5. Publishing: Issues, false good measures &... good measures! What goes wrong in the publishing system today? • “Publish or perish” publishing means: good scientific thought, job security, self-esteem etc... • Fashionscience: Things that are easier to publish than others, no matter the quality of the work. We have no power on the peer-reviewers. • Fight between personal interests and Science sake: Publish/Truth! • Build our thinking so that it would confirm our hypothesis or our results: no-logic!! • New ideas favored over confirmation and truth Nosek, Spies & Motyl, Psychological Science, 2012

6. The measures that are taken are unsifficient What are they? Why is that? • Conceptual replication: Interesting but cannot stand for a replication per se. • Self-correction: some evidence may one day infirm our hypothesis. But while nothing comes, our false-results may influence science... And when the truth comes out? • Negative-results journals: nobody want to publish there! • Ask journals to encourage negative-results: They prefer clean results, if you don't have, try next door • Peer-reviewing taking more care for false-results: they probably do. But: cannot see everything, and don't have access to everything! Nosek, Spies & Motyl, Psychological Science, 2012

7. Right measures to make science more correct? • What do the authors suggest? • What else could we think of? Paradigm-driven studies Challenging mindsets Identify what we should replicate Crowd-funded replication efforts Journals focused on the logic Lower publication barriers Open data, open methods, open tools Personal insights: What about making consortia? Several labs together May be we shall all take statistics courses! Nosek, Spies & Motyl, Psychological Science, 2012

8. Voice stress analyzer (VSA) Microtremordetection in speech signal Frequency of 10Hz in muscles on relxation VSA measures microtremor in 20-40hz Layered voice analyzer (LVA) Applies 8000 mathematical algorithms on 129 voice frequencies 500 lines of Visual Basic code in the patent No explanation on why certain values are correlated to emotional stress level Analysis is done the same way for human speech as for car engine recording Charlantanry in fornsic speech science

9. Financial and ethical effects based on usage of lie detectors Bogus Pipeline Effect Subject will answer more honestly if truth can be tested for accuracy. 14% vs 40% when lie detector was used. Information about use of VSA is important, actual use is irrelevant. Police departments Insurance companies Security agencies 16.000.000USD Should we accept that the insurance companies increase their profits by lying to their customers? Is the use of lies acceptable if it makes a suspect confess? Do we want councils to bring down social benefit costs by lying to their clients? Do we want security systems in our airports that are based on decisions no more valid than throwing a pair of dice? All lies? Scientists threatened with legal action over lie detector article Francisco Lacerda, a professor of phonetics at Stockholm University, is one of two scientists threatened with legal action after the publication of a scientific article condemning the use of lie detectors. The Israeli company Nemesysco, which manufactures detectors, has written in a letter to the researchers' publishers that the researchers may be sued for libel if they continue to write on this subject in the future.

10. Trouble in the lab Only 6 out of 53 landmark studies in cancer research could be replicated - Amgen Bater Healthcare replicated successfully 25% of 67 seminal studies Statistical mistakes are widespread Low statistical power in neuroscience, typically 0.21 Marjan Bakker “There is no cost to getting things wrong” “The cost is not getting them published”Brian Nosek PLoS ONE and Science Exchange Reproducibility Initiative – scientists can pay to have their work validated by an independent lab 18-point checklist introduced by Nature Negative results published 1990 30% and 14% in 2007 Budding scientists must be taught technical skills, including statistics, and must be imbued with skepticism towards their own results and those of others. Researchers ought to be judged on the basis of the quality, not the quantity, of their work.  “need to develop a value system where simply moving on from one’s mistakes without publicly acknowledging them severely damages, rather than protects, a scientific reputation.”  Errorous paper about cancer research was accepted in 157 of 304 per reviwed papers - John Bohannon Melissa Haendelfound > 50% of biomedical papers failed to identify all the resources necessary to reproduce the results.