Responsible Conduct in Research — Standards and Expectations for Ethical Conduct

1. Responsible Conduct in Research — Standards and Expectations for Ethical Conduct Angela Lumpkin University of Kansas

2. Purpose of this Segment of Session • Describe the importance and content of responsible conduct of research with an emphasis on research ethics, research integrity, and ethical decision-making in research. • Describe the federal definition of research misconduct, provide other examples of research misconduct, and explain the process for dealing with research misconduct.

3. Responsible Conduct in Research* • Responsible conduct in research is good citizenship applied to professional life. That is, researchers who report their work honestly, accurately, efficiently, and objectively are demonstrating responsible conduct in research. • Responsible conduct in research is a combination of research integrity and research ethics. *Steneck, 2007

4. Research integrity is “the quality of possessing and steadfastly adhering to high moral principles and professional standards, as outlined by professional organizations, research institutions and, when relevant, the government and public.”* • This is research behavior viewed from the perspective of professional standards. • Research ethics is “the critical study of the moral problems associated with or that arise in the course of pursuing research.”* • This is research behavior viewed from the perspective of moral principles. *Steneck, 2006, pp. 55-56

5. Characteristics of Research Integrity and Research Ethics* • Honesty • Accuracy • Efficiency • Objectivity • Integrity • Carefulness • Openness • Confidentiality • Respect for colleagues • Respect for intellectual property • Social responsibility • Competence • Equality of opportunity • Legality • Animal care • Human subjects protection *Shamoo & Resnik, 2003; Steneck, 2007

6. Codes of Ethics • NASPE Code of Ethics for Professionals in Higher Education http://www.aahperd.org/naspe/standards/upload/Code-of-Ethics-for-Professionals-in-Higher-Ed-final-10-29-09-2.pdf • Research Consortium Code of Ethics http://www.aahperd.org/rc/about/codeofethics.cfm

7. Core Instructional Areas in the Responsible Conduct of Research* • Acquisition, management, sharing, and ownership of data • Conflict of interest and commitment • Research misconduct (fabrication; falsification; plagiarism) • Publication practices and responsible authorship • Mentor/mentee responsibilities • Peer review • Collaborative scholarship • Human subjects • Animal subjects *U.S. Office of Research Integrity

8. Three-Part Framework for Moral Reasoning* *Elliott & Stern, 1997 • Identify the ethical issues, problems, or questions in the situation. • Determine the ethical principles or standards that will be used in the ethical analysis and decision-making process. • Follow a seven-step procedure for ethical decision-making.

9. Seven-Step Procedure for Ethical Decision Making* *Elliott & Stern, 1997 • Identify and define the ethical issues. • Determine the key facts involved in the situation and what, if any, additional information is needed. • Recognize the affected parties. • Formulate alternative courses of action that could be taken based on the facts. • Evaluate the alternatives. • Construct possible options and select the best option. • Take action.

10. Responsibilities in Ethical Decision-Making in Research* *Kalichman, 2002 • To the research: data management, publication, conflicts of interest, and research misconduct and whistleblowing. • To the subjects: human and animal. • To other researchers: mentoring, collaborations and authorship, and peer review. • To the institution: fiscal management. • To society: social responsibility. • To the environment: environmental health and safety. • To self: balance of work and personal life.

11. Framework of Responsible Conduct of Research* *Pimple, 2002 • Is it true? Truth prevents falsification, fabrication, and unintentional bias by ensuring scientific integrity. • Is it fair? Fairness deals with the relationship among researchers, between researchers and subjects, and to sponsoring entities. • Is it wise? Wisdom requires social responsibility and the proper relationship between research and the common good. • Researchers who act ethically and responsibly are not just following the rules, they are demonstrating a greater sense of morality.

12. Dimensions of Research Misconduct* • Research misconduct is the intentional fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. *http://ori.hhs.gov/policies/fed_research_misconduct.shtml

13. Fabrication • Making up data or results and recording or reporting them. • Examples • Reporting results of research not yet performed as evidence in support of proposals for grant funding. • Omission of data or reporting positive, but not negative, outcomes.

14. Falsification • Manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results so the research is not accurately represented in the research record. • Examples • Claiming a large data set when none exists. • Recording data incorrectly. • Changing data to support hypotheses. • Suppression of or non-publication of data with the intent to deceive, thus misrepresenting interventions.

15. Plagiarism • The appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. • Examples • Taking credit for someone else’s work. • Publishing multiple versions of the same work or results. • Failing to acknowledge all contributors as authors. • Giving attribution to authors who did not contribute.

16. Research Misconduct Must Include* 2011 Office of Research Integrity Case Summary: Bhrigu, Vipul Case Summary: Bois, Philippe Case Summary: Goodwill, Meleik Case Summary: Jagannathan, Jayant Case Summary: Jamieson, Jennifer Case Summary: Lushington, Gerald Case Summary: Marija Manojlovic Case Summary: Sanyal, Shamarendra Case Summary: Shin, Junghee Case Summary: Solomon, Nicola Case Summary: Visvanathan, Mahesh Case Summary: Wang, Sheng Case Summary: Weber, Scott *Steneck, 2007 • Departs significantly from accepted practices. • Is committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. • Has been proven by a preponderance of evidence.

17. Scandalous Science: Scientists Cheating on Data

18. Examples of Questionable Research Practices* *Steneck, 2006 • Changing the order of authors to indicate undeserved credit. • Listing unaccepted papers as “in press.” • Including bogus publications on one’s vitae. • Receiving or giving honorary or ghost authorship. • Publishing the same information more than once. • Publishing the results of one experiment in several publications (i.e., salami slicing)

19. Examples of Questionable Research Practices* *Steneck, 2006 • Making errors in citations. • Making errors in quotations. • Failing to provide enough information in the methods to allow for replication or evaluation. • Using improper statistics and data analyses. • Failing to reveal a conflict of interest. • Presenting evidence for other than scholarly or scientific reasons. • Yielding to undue influence of the funding agency.

20. Top Ten Misbehaviors that Scientists Engage in* *Martinson, Anderson, & deVries, 2005, p. 737 • “Falsifying or ‘cooking’ research data. • Ignoring major aspects of human-subject requirements. • Not properly disclosing involvement in firms whose products are based on one’s own research. • Relationships with students, research subjects or clients that may be interpreted as questionable. • Using another’s ideas without obtaining permission or giving due credit.

21. Top Ten Misbehaviors that Scientists Engage in* *33% of respondents had engaged in at least 1 of the top 10 misbehaviors in past three years. Unauthorized use of confidential information in connection with one’s own research. Failing to present data that contradict one’s own previous research. Circumventing certain minor aspects of human-subject requirements. Overlooking others’ use of flawed data or questionable interpretation of data. Changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from a funding source.”

22. Unethical Conduct or Misrepresentation in Scientific and Technical Publishing* *Lafollette, 1992 By authors • Falsifying data or artifacts that do not exist. • Forging documents or objects. • Misrepresenting or distorting data or evidence. • Failing to make proper attribution for another’s ideas or text (plagiarism). • Misrepresenting authorship through providing or withholding credit without merit. • Misrepresenting the publication status on one’s work.

23. Unethical Conduct or Misrepresentation in Scientific and Technical Publishing* *Lafollette, 1992 By referees • Misrepresenting facts in a review. • Delayinga review to achieve personal gain. • Stealing ideas or text during the review process. By editors or editorial advisors or staff • Fabricating a referee’s report. • Failing to honestly communicate with an author about the review process. • Stealing ideas or text during the review process.

24. Van Noorden, 2011

25. Possible Causes of Misconduct • Pressure to gain promotion and tenure. • Pressure for professional advancement. • Ease of intentionally reporting inaccurate, incomplete, or more positive results. • Failure to engage in rigorous academic research. • Rationalization that everyone else does it. • Belief that no one will ever find out about it. • Claim that an unintentional or careless error was made rather than misconduct.

26. What If You Think Research Misconduct Has Occurred • Accept personal responsibility. • Report concerns through the appropriate institutional process. • Ensure confidentiality to protect the person who raised a concern.

27. Investigating Reports of Research Misconduct* *Steneck, 2007 • Designated individual receives an allegation of misconduct. • Inquiry process assesses whether the allegation has merit. • Formal investigative process determines the facts and truth regarding the allegation. • Adjudication process weighs the evidence and draws conclusions. • Implementation of sanctions for misconduct or vindication of the person falsely charged. • The findings are reported appropriately.

28. When Misconduct Has Been Confirmed • Retraction of any fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized research. • Loss of job. • Salary reduction. • Stripping of rank. • Ineligibility for funding. • Repayment of funding. • Professional image tarnished. • Public statement of apology.

29. Impact of Research Misconduct* • Makes research findings unreliable. • Weakens trust among colleagues. • Undermines the public’s trust in researchers. • Wastes research funds. • Too often, research is not conducted in conformity with the highest ethical and intellectual standards. *Steneck, 2006

30. Concluding Comments • Research integrity and research ethics characterize responsible conduct of research. • Responsible conduct applies to all aspects of research. • Researchers must strictly conform to federal, institutional, and professional requirements. • Every researcher must accept responsibility to call to the attention of appropriate individuals any concerns about possible research misconduct. • Engaging in research misconduct has and should have serious consequences.

31. Questions Angela Lumpkin University of Kansas alumpkin@ku.edu 785-864-0778

32. References • Elliott, D., & Stern, J. E. (1997). Research ethics: Areader. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England for the Institute for the Study of Applied and Professional Ethics at Dartmouth College. • Kalichman, M. (2002). Ethical decision-making in research: Identifying all competing interests. Commentary on “Six domains of research ethics.” Science and Engineering Ethics, 8, 215-218. • LaFollette, M. C. (1992). Stealing into print: Fraud, plagiarism, and misconduct in scientific publishing. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. • Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & deVries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435, 737-738.

33. References • Peake, D. (2010). Scandalous science: Scientists cheating on data. Chicago, IL: Medill Reports. Retrieved from http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=157268 • Pimple, K. D. (2002). Six domains of research ethics: A heuristic framework for the responsible conduct of research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8, 191-205. • Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2003). Responsible conduct of research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. • Steneck, N. H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 53-74.

34. References • Steneck, N. H. (2007). ORI Introduction to the responsible conduct of research. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. • United States Office of Research Integrity. Retrieved from http://ori.hhs.gov/ • Van Noorden, R. (2011). Science publishing: The trouble with retractions. Nature, 478, 26-28.