1 / 51

PHIL/MBIOL 7570 Case Studies in Research Ethics

PHIL/MBIOL 7570 Case Studies in Research Ethics. Fall 2008 Bryan Benham Department of Philosophy. Woo Suk Hwang. Why Research Ethics?. S. Korean stem-cell scandal. Success Seoul National University 1999 announced cow cloning But, not confirmed. Science, March 12, 2004 somatic cloning

theodore
Download Presentation

PHIL/MBIOL 7570 Case Studies in Research Ethics

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. PHIL/MBIOL 7570Case Studies in Research Ethics Fall 2008 Bryan Benham Department of Philosophy

  2. Woo Suk Hwang Why Research Ethics? Phil 7570: Case Studies in Research Ethics

  3. S. Korean stem-cell scandal Success Seoul National University 1999 announced cow cloning But, not confirmed. Science, March 12, 2004 somatic cloning Science, June 17,2005 11 hESC lines, patient matched August, 2005 Cloned dog, “Snuppy” Leader of World Stem Cell Hub Failure Accused of paying for donated eggs, from lab techs. Gerald Schatten (U Pitt.) ceased collaborations, and withdrew name from 2005 Science paper. Both Science papers found to have fabricated data; subsequently retracted. Also, charges of embezzlement and government collusion. Removed from SNU and WSCH.

  4. Insult to injury Review of Hwang Woo Suk’s research shows his embryonic stem cell lines were likely the product of parthenogenesis – a form of asexual reproduction. “It could have been a seminal finding if they hadn’t had their blinders on.” Kent Vrana, Penn State University Reported in New York Times, Aug. 3, 2007 and Scientific American, Aug. 2, 2007.Confirmed by Kim et al. 2007: Cell Stem Cell,1(3): 346-352.

  5. Consequences? • Misconduct: fabricated data • Financial conflicts of interest (with gov’t involvement) • Coerced lab-members: egg donation* • Missed significant finding – parthenogenesis • Undermined confidence in collaborations with S. Korea • Global public perception of stem cell research affected • Set back stem cell advances by a number of years

  6. Perceptions?

  7. But, “Snuppy” is real… Hwang Suk currently owns/directs a private company that clones pets the Sooam BioTech Research Center which recently announced 5 clones of a pet, Booger, in collaborations with RNL and SNU. Houston Chronicle, August 5, 2008: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/pets/dogs/5926679.html

  8. Outline • Course Overview • Research Misconduct • Ethical Framework hum.utah.edu/~bbenham Phil 7570: Case Studies in Research Ethics

  9. Course Objectives • Serves as an “ethics education” component for funding sources and programs across campus. • Increase ethical sensitivity to research ethics issues and serve the U as a forum and resource for discussing research ethics issues. hum.utah.edu/~bbenham Phil 7570: Case Studies in Research Ethics

  10. Course Requirements • Course Structure • Ten Week Course (See Schedule) • Lecture and Small Group Discussion of Case Studies • First and last meetings, only lecture* • Grade Distribution • Readings & Case Studies (Available Online) • Attendance: no less than 8 of 10 to receive credit • Final Paper: Case Study Analysis and Evaluation hum.utah.edu/~bbenham Phil 7570: Case Studies in Research Ethics

  11. Fall 2008 Schedule Sept. 4 RCR and Misconduct* Sept. 11 Authorship Sept. 18 Data Management Sept. 25 Mentoring Issues   Oct. 2 Animal Subjects Oct. 9 Human Subjects Oct. 16 Fall Break - No Meeting Oct. 23 Social Pressures on Science Oct. 30 Commerce & Research Nov. 6 Science’s Effect on Society Nov. 13 Social Responsibility* Nov. 20 Papers Due Phil 7570: Case Studies in Research Ethics

  12. Faculty – Fall 08 Course Director • Bryan Benham (Philosophy) Faculty Facilitators • Kathi Mooney (Nursing) • Kim Korinek (Sociology) • Tom Richmond (Chemistry) • David Grunwald (Genetics) • Michael Kay (Biochem) • Matt Williams (Pathology) • Jody Rosenblatt (OncSci • Alana Welm (OncSci) • Jerry Spangrude (Path) • Scott Rogers (Neuro&Anat) • Lorise Gahring (Path) • Grzegorz Bulaj (MedChem) Phil 7570: Case Studies in Research Ethics

  13. Central Dogma The focus of the course is not merely understanding “the regulations,” but more importantly identifying and employing the underlying ethical principles and values that guide responsible research, so that one can (ideally) navigate the rocky shoals and murky waters of daily research practice. Phil 7570: Case Studies in Research Ethics

  14. Examples • A professor publishes ideas and experiments developed by her graduate student, without giving credit to the student. • A researcher presents a paper that shows 33 data points that are consistent with his hypothesis, but doesn’t report the other 12 data points that are significantly inconsistent with his hypothesis. • An experimenter recruits subjects for his study on cognitive effects of stress on children, but advertises it as a study on the role of social interactions in child learning. Phil 7570: Case Studies in Research Ethics

  15. Examples • While waiting to hear from a journal about her latest paper submission, a new assistant professor hears from the editor that the paper is held up by a reviewer who has been “extremely busy,” but professor suspects the reviewer may be delaying her paper in order to publish first with similar findings. • A researcher published favorable results for a new memory enhancing drug, without disclosing that she serves as a consultant and holds stocks in the company that is developing this new drug. Phil 7570: Case Studies in Research Ethics

  16. And a bad grad A FORMER GRADUATE STUDENT at Michigan State University was sentenced on Monday to 10 months in prison for faking the theft of his own research materials. The student, Scott M. Doree, was supposed to be working on a vaccine to prevent a pneumonialike disease in pigs, but he apparently had not done any research for several years, authorities say. • http://chronicle.com/daily/2003/08/2003082102n.htm. Phil 7570: Case Studies in Research Ethics

  17. Central Dogma The focus of the course is not merely understanding “the regulations,” but more importantly identifying and employing the underlying ethical principles and values that guide responsible research, so that one can (ideally) navigate the rocky shoals and murky waters of daily research practice. Phil 7570: Case Studies in Research Ethics

  18. Outline • Course Overview • Research Misconduct • Ethical Framework hum.utah.edu/~bbenham Phil 7570: Case Studies in Research Ethics

  19. Integrity vs. Misconduct …it is vital for leaders of the academic community to ensure that research conducted on our campuses meets the highest standards of ethics and integrity*…By integrity of the research process, the panel means the adherence by scientists and their institutions to honest and verifiable methods in proposing, performing, evaluating, and reporting research activities**… Integrity in science is perhaps better seen today as an extension of current concerns with quality***… Quality refers to the rigor with which experiments are designed and carried out; statistical analyses performed, and results accurately recorded and reported, with credit given where it is due. Integrity in research means that the reported results are honest and accurate and are in keeping with generally accepted research practices.**** Phil 7570: Case Studies in Research Ethics

  20. Research Misconduct Research Misconduct comes in two flavors: Wide = generally refers to questionable research practices (QRP) and implicates norms of responsible science. Narrow = federal definition restricted to certain egregious behaviors, FFP. Phil 7570: Case Studies in Research Ethics

  21. “Wide” misconduct Wide misconduct is the general notion of questionable scientific practice (QRP) and implicitly appeals to norms of responsible science: Technically competent, creative; and Ethically responsible Specific norms of responsible research Critical, Honest, Open, Disinterested, Safe, Responsive, etc. Positive ideal is helpful, but limited without some clearer idea about when, e.g., honesty and openness is applicable.

  22. Norms & Realities “Many plausible-sounding rules [ideals] for defining ethical conduct might be destructive to the aims of scientific inquiry… Behavior that may seem at first glance morally un attractive can, in a properly functioning system, produce results that are generally beneficial.” James Woodward and David Goodstein Conduct, Misconduct and the Structure of Science, American Scientist 84(5): 468-478. Phil 7570: Case Studies in Research Ethics

  23. Critical Developments Scientific research is increasingly: • Professional & Career-Oriented • Collaborative • Specialized • Competitive Each puts stress on accepted norms of responsible science. Phil 7570: Case Studies in Research Ethics

  24. “Narrow” misconduct Federal – Office of Science and Technology Policy, 2000: "fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results." a.k.a: FFP This is not meant to include honest mistake or error in research. But a finding of misconduct does require "that there be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community" proven by the preponderance of evidence.

  25. FFP? Fabrication • is making up results and recording or reporting the fabricated results. 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 and without specific approval, including those obtained through confidential review of others' research proposals and manuscripts. Phil 7570: Case Studies in Research Ethics

  26. Please Note University of Utah Misconduct is "fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other practices that seriously deviate from those practices that are commonly accepted within the research community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research. It does not include honest error or honest difference in interpretations or judgments of data." Phil 7570: Case Studies in Research Ethics

  27. Jan Hendrik Schön – Bell Labs(See Science 24 May 2002 and 5 July 2002.) September 2002 an investigating committee found that a series of extraordinary advances in molecular-scale transistors by Schön, 32, were based on falsified experimental data. Resulted in the retraction of at least 17 papers published in various journals, including Science and Nature, between 1998 and 2001. Schön was fired from Bell Labs. No other co-authors were found guilty of misconduct. Disheartening because “this was the first case of misconduct at Bell Laboratories;, and the work was of Nobel quality.”

  28. Victor Ninov – LBNL(See New York Times, 15 October 2002.) • Ninov was recognized expert in detecting decay chains of unstable trans-uranium elements; involved in discovery of elements 110, 111, and 112. Hired to compete with German and Russian teams. • Investigation found that published report of synthesizing element 118 was based on fabricated data. Ninov plus 14 co-authors. • Ninov denied accusations, but was fired in 2001 from LBNL. Other co-authors reprimanded for “not being vigilant enough.”

  29. As reported:(New York Times, 15 October 2002.) As the final report put it: “The committee finds it incredible that not a single collaborator checked the validity of Ninov’s conclusions of having found three element 118 decay chains by tracing these events back to the raw data tapes.” But members of the group say it is routine in this type of complex experiments to delegate responsibility. “The fundamental assumption is that of trust in the honesty and competence of your colleagues, especially if they have distinguished reputations, as was the case here,” Note: as a result of the Schön and Ninov cases the American Physical Society adopts more stringent professional ethics guidelines by 2004.

  30. Plagiarism? Scientific American See also Nature 451, 24 January 2008. Phil 7570: Case Studies in Research Ethics

  31. What does this tell us about “narrow” misconduct? Temptations of modern scientific research Junior and senior scientists alike Competition and Professionalism Collaborations pose special problems Technical specialization in collaborations Strains norms of trust and honesty Other Issues Involved: Authorship and Data Management Peer Review Mentoring and Institutional Oversight

  32. FFP Underreported • Repairing research integrity – Nature 453(19), 2008 • Surveyed 2,212 scientists • 8.7% (192) observed or had evidence of one or more incidents of misconduct over the past three years (2002-05) in their department. (Total of 265 incidents, methodology cut to 201.) • Equivalent to 3 incidents per 100 researchers per year; Extrapolations to al DHHS-funded researchers = 2,300 observations of potential misconduct (FFP). • However, reported number of investigations remains low: average 24 institutional reports to Office of Research Integrity (ORI) per year. • Misconduct (FFP) is underreported…and may be a much larger problem. Phil 7570: Case Studies in Research Ethics

  33. Wide Misconduct FFP is only the tip of the iceberg Questionable research practices that are not FFP may be more pervasive and erosive for the integrity of the research enterprise. Phil 7570: Case Studies in Research Ethics

  34. Two Studies Ethics and the welfare of the physics profession – Physics Today, Nov. 2004 Surveyed junior membership of APS and others* 39% of junior respondents reported observing or having knowledge of ethical violations 4% of those incidents were misconduct (see chart) Scientists behaving badly – Nature 435, 2005 Surveyed 3,247 early and mid career scientists funded by NIH 28% early and 38% mid-career (33% overall) reported engaging in one or more of the top ten questionable research practices

  35. Distribution of ethics violationsKirby & Houle. 2004. Ethics and the welfare of the physics profession. Physics Today, November. (Figure 1)

  36. Top 10 ethics violationsMartinson, Anderson, & De Vries. 2005. Scientists behaving badly. Nature 435(9). (Table 1.) Who Did It?* Early-career = 28% Mid-career = 38% Total = 33% *Under-reporting bias FFP: 1 & 5 = <2% Others = 5% or higher, often above 10%

  37. A Culture of Misconduct? Research suggests misconduct is pervasive, perhaps a “culture” of irresponsible research or unreflective research practice in combination with modern practices of research leads to sloppy science, unethical science, or worse. History Testifies to Problems: • Human Participation: Nazis, Willowbrook, Tuskegee, etc. • Misconduct: “Baltimore Affair,” S. Korean Debacle, etc. • COI: Jesse Gelsinger & “Global Warming” Policies Phil 7570: Case Studies in Research Ethics

  38. Central Dogma The focus of the course is not merely understanding “the regulations,” but more importantly identifying and employing the underlying ethical principles and values that guide responsible research, so that one can (ideally) navigate the rocky shoals and murky waters of daily research practice. Phil 7570: Case Studies in Research Ethics

  39. What is “Ethics”? • Determining what one should do… • Right/wrong, good/bad, better/worse • Principled and Practical • Promotion and Prevention • Not mysterious, subjective, arcane practice of analysis or deliberation, • but a balancingact… Phil 7570: Case Studies in Research Ethics

  40. Ethical Leads to good consequences. Weighs interests fairly. In accord with an ethical principle. Unethical Leads to bad consequences. Doesn’t weigh interests fairly. Violates an ethical principle. What is the difference between an ethical and unethical action? Phil 7570: Case Studies in Research Ethics

  41. Balancing Three Questions 1. What are the consequences? • Short term and long term consequences. • Consequences to whom? (see next.) 2. Who’s interests are involved? • Who will benefit? Who will be at risk? Who is responsible? Who has the power? • Individuals, groups, society at large • Professional interests, research enterprise, commercial interests, academic interests, public interests, non-human animals… 3. What principles or rules apply? • General: don’t kill, harm, lie, cheat, steal; do good, protect the vulnerable, etc. • Research Oriented: Honesty, Openness, Disinterested, Safe, Responsive, Beneficial Phil 7570: Case Studies in Research Ethics

  42. P C I Ethical Framework Principles Consequences Interests Phil 7570: Case Studies in Research Ethics

  43. P C I Sample Case Study A researcher presents a paper that shows 33 data points that are consistent with his hypothesis, but doesn’t report the other 12 data points that are significantly inconsistent with his hypothesis. • Is this falsification of data? Why or why not? • Does it make a difference if his results are reproducible? Or fail to be exactly reproduced? • Why is this important for research? Phil 7570: Case Studies in Research Ethics

  44. Robert Andrews Millikan (1868-1953) Nobel laureate in physics (1923) for measuring charge on electron and work on photoelectric effect. Oil drop experiment: 1913 paper: error of 0.2% which bested the current 3%. He reports “…this is not a select group of drops but represents all of the drops experimented upon during 60 consecutive days….” But review of notebooks demonstrates he used only 57 of 75-100 trial results. Charges of fraud, “cosmic surgery,” and “…extensively misrepresented his work in order to make his experimental results seem more convincing than was in fact the case.”

  45. What does this tell us about research ethics? • A look at Millikan’s notebooks revealed cryptic remarks about why he rejected this or that experiment, including “too high” and “doesn’t fit.” While no one denies Millikan’s finding, they do question the reliability of his experiment and his choice of data points. • Science is messy… • Frederick Grinnell (2000) argues that “at the edge of knowledge” discovery requires confounding experiments in which no clear line divides a signal from noise. From the outside it might look like arbitrary decisions, but the final test is whether the science community is convinced. • Perception is that ethics violations can draw a clear line between acceptable experimental manipulation and unacceptable manipulation. • Thus the importance of an accurate and reliable research record and an understanding of how science works. Grinnell, Frederick. 2000. The Practice of Science at the Edge of Knowledge. The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 24; B11.

  46. Repairing research integrity – Nature 453(19), 2008 Phil 7570: Case Studies in Research Ethics

  47. P C I Repairing research integrity – Nature 453(19), 2008 Phil 7570: Case Studies in Research Ethics

  48. Repairing research integrity – Nature 453(19), 2008 Phil 7570: Case Studies in Research Ethics

  49. Solutions? • Education and Deterrence • Institutional Level Response • Mentoring & Culture of Responsibility • Zero Tolerance • Protect Whistleblowers • Clear Expectations Repairing research integrity – Nature 453(19), 2008 Phil 7570: Case Studies in Research Ethics

  50. Consider Perceptions

More Related