1 / 12

Scientific Misbehavior

Scientific Misbehavior. Jiunn-Ren Roan. Fall 2006. What is scientific misbehavior?. From http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1960/. The scientific paper is a fraud in the sense that it does give a totally misleading narrative of the processes of thought

terrel
Download Presentation

Scientific Misbehavior

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. Scientific Misbehavior Jiunn-Ren Roan Fall 2006

  2. What is scientific misbehavior?

  3. From http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1960/ The scientific paper is a fraud in the sense that it does give a totally misleading narrative of the processes of thought that go into the making of scientific discoveries. －Sir Peter Medawar (1915-1987) Winner of the Nobel Prize in Medicine 1960

  4. FFP Definition for misconduct given by US Office of Science and Technology Policy • Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism • in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research • results. • Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or • reporting them. • Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or • processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that • the research is not accurately represented in the research • record. • Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, • processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. • Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of • opinion. • — http://www.ostp.gov/html/001207_3.html

  5. Scientists behaving badly—Nature435, 737 (2005)

  6. From Nature435, 737 (2005)

  7. Some Recent Cases

  8. From Nature427, 3 (2004) Yung Park (University of Cambridge and Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology) published about 80 papers in 19 journals between 1995 and 2002. 8 papers between 1997 and 2001 are plagiarized! 2 pairs of papers with significant overlap in separate journals!

  9. From Science303, 606 (2004) • Anders Pape Møller (Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris): • Author of more than 450 articles and several books • Many of his findings are incorporated into standard textbooks • “It’s hardly possible to write a paper in behavioral ecology • without making extensive citations of Anders’s work” • —Ian Jones (Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada) In 2001 Møller retracted a paper he published in Oikos in 1998 after Rabøl wrote to Oikos’s editor-in-chief. Unsatisfied with what Møller said (“the measurements and analyses behind the data...were flawed and misinterpreted”), Rabøl filed a formal complaint against Møller to Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD). Møller was unable to provide original data. DCSD’s report: “There are very strong indications that it must, at least in part, be fabricated” and what he said in his retraction is “hardly credible”.

  10. From http://web.mit.edu/giving/spectrum/winter03/healthy-promise.html • Luk Van Parijs (MIT, Caltech, Harvard): • A rising star at MIT in the hot field of RNA interference • “I thought Luk was an excellent scientist...” • —David Baltimore (Caltech president, Winner of Nobel Prize • in Medicine 1975) In 2004 graduate students and postdocs in Van Parij’s lab approached MIT administrators with allegations of research misconduct saying “There were data that they could not verify the origins of. MIT began examination of the 22 papers Van Parijs co-authored during his 5 years at MIT. Caltech looked at 2 articles Van Parijs published, including one co-authored by Baltimore. Harvard scrutinize a paper by Van Parijs. MIT fired Van Parijs.

  11. References • 1. B. C. Martinson, M. S. Anderson, and R. de Vries, Scientists behaving badly. • Nature435, 737 (2005). • 2. J. Giles, Plagiarism in Cambridge physics lab prompts calls for guidelines. • Nature427, 3 (2004). • 3. A. Abbott, Prolific ecologist vows to fight Danish misconduct verdict. • Nature427, 381 (2004). • 4. G. Vogel, F. Proffitt, and R. Stone, Ecologists roiled by misconduct case. • Science303, 606 (2004). • 5. J. Couzin, MIT terminates researcher over data fabrication. • Science310, 758 (2005). • 6. R. Dalton, Universities scramble to assess scope of falsified results. • Nature438, 7 (2005). • 7. J. Couzin and M. Schirber, Fraud upends oral cancer field, casting doubt on prevention • Trial. Science311, 448 (2006). • 8. E. Marris, Doctor admits Lancet study is fiction. • Nature439, 248 (2006). • 9. I. Fuyuno and D. Cyranoski, Doubts over biochemist’s data expose holes in Japanese • fraud laws. Nature439, 514 (2006). • 10. D. Normile, Tokyo professor asked to redo experiments. • Science 309, 1973 (2005). • 11. I. Fuyuno, Further accusations rock Japanese RNA laboratory. • Nature440, 720 (2006).

  12. References (cont’d) 12. D. Normile, Panel discredits findings of Tokyo University team. Science311, 595 (2006). 13. G. Vassart, J. V. Broeck, F. Mendive, and T. V. Loy, The parable of the mandarin. EMBO Rep. 6, 592 (2005). 14. J. Couzin and K. Unger, Cleaning up the paper trail. Science312, 38 (2006). 15. B. E. Barton, Six-word rule could turn description into plagiarism. Nature436, 24 (2005) 16. F. Grinnell, Misconduct: acceptable practices differ by field. Nature436, 776 (2005). 17. E. Marris, Should journals police scientific fraud? Nature439, 520 (2006). 18. K. Powell, Misconduct mayhem. Nature441, 122 (2006). 19. J. Giles, Taking on the cheats. Nature435, 258 (2005).

More Related