Research Integrity

SCHOOLOF ENGINEERING

Faculty of Science and Engineering

A personal perspective

Yves De DeeneDepartment of Engineering

The views expressed carry my own perspective as a researcher.

Yves De DeeneProfessor of Biomedical EngineeringMacquarie University

3Faculty of Science and Engineering | School of Engineering

Do you conduct your research with integrity ?

Some statistics (from a study in the US)

Source: Martison et al, Scientists behaving badly, Nature 435: 737-8, 2005

5Faculty of Science and Engineering | School of Engineering

What is (research) integrity ?

“Integrity is the practice of being honest andshowing a consistent and uncompromisingadherence to strong moral and ethical principlesand values.”

- Cambridge Dictionary -

Research Integrity ∈ Research Ethics

Research Integrity ∈ Research Ethics

Integrity is “keeping your word”.

Research Integrity

“Research integrity is the commitment – sometimes in the face

of adversity – to the trustworthiness of the research process by

the greater scientific community. It is important – even critical –

because the greater scientific community can only innovate and

flourish when its members function together as a body to

ensure a climate that promotes confidence and trust in our

research findings, encourages free and open exchange of

research materials and new ideas, upholds personal and

corporate accountability, and acknowledges and respects the

intellectual contributions of others in the greater community.”

Source: http://www.webguru.neu.edu/professionalism/research-integrity

Ghostwriting

Scientific misconduct

Data manipulation: falsification, fabrication and obfuscation

Plagiarism and self-plagiarism

Redundant or duplicate publication of data or results

Violation of ethical standards: obscured informed consent and unnecessary animal experiments

Misleading ascription of authorship to a publicationincluding listing authors without their permission,attributing work to people who did not contribute tothe publication, omission of people eligible to beauthors, lack of appropriate acknowledgement ofwork primarily produced by others

Failure to declare conflicts-of-interest

Questionable / Bad Research Practices

Salami publications: Data gathered by one research project isseparately reported (wholly or in part) in multiple end publications

Duplicate publications: Similar data presented in several publications in different journals

Journal shopping: Submitting a manuscript to a high ranked journal and if not accepted submitting to another (lower ranked) journal

Data management: Not keeping original data or making it available to others

Scientific dishonesty: Not retracting a publication while being aware of mistakes

Bad statistics: Misuse of statistics, insignificant population size, formulating findings in a misleading way (e.g. the misuse of p-values) to enhance ‘significance’.

p-HARKing: Hypothesis after results of an experiment or survey are known.

Profiteering: Using the instrumentation, infrastructure, ideas, time commitment and/or intermediate findings of others without recognizing and acknowledging the work of others.

A word on publishing your research

It is nothing like this…

A word on publishing your research

• The referees are not the enemy… Consider them as an allythat can help in picking up flaws and improve yourmanuscript, (but also don’t use them like that).

• Treat referee comments seriously.

• Deal with each and every point in a serious manner.

• Don’t cast aspersions on referees or try to guess the refereesidentity (You’re most likely to be wrong).

• Be courteous to referees and editors.

Consequences of scientific misconductFor the individual:

For the research team / faculty / university:

For the research community:

• Investigation >> Disciplinary Sanction >> Fired • Bad reputation, loss of funding• Black listed by journals and/or funding bodies• Jailed

• Waste of resources• Loss of time and money as research needs to be repeated• Reputation loss, loss of credibility, prestige and honor• Loss of funding

• Waste of time and resources (e.g. peer reviewers)• Loss of credibility in science with the general public and a turn towards pseudoscience• Loss of trust in scientific findings

For the community:

• Waste of tax-payers money• Disbelieve and loss of open debate

Source: Fang et al, Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications, PNAS 109(42), 17028-33, 2012.

Stern AM et al, Financial costs and personal consequences of research misconduct resulting in retracted publications, eLife 3:e02956, 2014.

In the US: Estimated funding totals of all NIH grants that contributed to 291 retracted articles between 1992 – 2012:

$2,324,906,182

Retracted papersA low percentage but with large consequences

Why trustworthiness in science matters …

Why trustworthiness in science matters …

Causes of scientific misconduct

“Rotten Apple” “Rotten System”

It’s okay if I don’t get caught

Everyone does it

I was too busy

It was a too boring task

I’m not going to stay in research after my PhD It’s the

success that counts

Academic culture of ‘Publish or Perish’

As long as I get paid

‘Easy fast science’ and technology is promoted at the cost of more risk full and time-consuming research

Funding bodies that expect results before the research is done

Unhealthy competiveness amongst researchers

Too much emphasis on positive sexy outcomes

Corporate agenda’s interfering with free scientific enquiry

Lack of funding and too many researchers (for wrong reasons)

I did it for the group

Conformity to the group Peer pressure Normative social influence

(see: Asch conformity experiment)Neoliberal meritocracy and the commercialization of science

The Asch Conformity Experiment

Video available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyDDyT1lDhA

• Promote a culture that encourages responsible research.

• Establish good governance and management practices.

• Provide induction, training and continuing education for all researchers.

• Promote effective mentoring and supervision for everyone involved in research.

• Ensure a safe research environment.

• Implement processes and policies to ensure fairness when considering reports of inappropriate research behaviour.

The Macquarie University Code for Responsible Conduct of Research

• Maintain high standards of responsible research.

• Ensure that research findings are reported responsibly.

• Respect research participants and be aware of and comply with all requirements of human research ethics.

• Respect animals used in research and be aware of and comply with all requirements of animal research ethics.

• Respect the environment.

• Report inappropriate research behaviours.

Expectations

University and researchers commitments

Research integrity and ethics IS NOT just complying to university regulations, the law, professional codes of responsible conduct, sets of rules, etc.

It starts with YOU …

Integrity is choosing courage over comfort. Choosing what’s right over what’s fun, fast or easy and practicing your values

~ Bréne Brown ~

And what about Ethics ?

It’s not always about humans…Replace, Reduce, Refine

And what about Ethics ?

It IS (also) your responsibility: As a collaborator with an industry partner or

any other organisation, you have a moral duty to question its practices.

Movie: On Being a Scientist, Netherlands Research Integrity Network (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCgZSjoxF7c)

On Being a Scientist

Food for thought / discussion

Authorship and ownership may not always be a clear-cut case. For prof. Ponter the question ofcredits at the time of publication was not a question at all; he was the one who thought up theproject, got it funded and made it happen. Pierre Descartin, although essential to the project,was just a PhD candidate who was lucky enough to get a chance to contribute to such animportant research project.

In the end prof. Ponter publicly acknowledges that he was wrong to accept the Weinberg prizeon personal title. He states that most scientific discoveries, like the one on protein-protein-interactions, are not due to the endeavours of one person, and that he should not have acted asif it was.

Who should get the credit?

Participation in animal experimentation (dog)?

Is animal experimentation morally justifiable? What criteria do you use?When is animal experimentation justified?Who decides?

Conflict of interest

Rebecca has an intimate relationship with Pierre Descartin. When does it become aconflict-of-interest? Pierre Descartin reads her a sentence that she includes in a scientificpublication. appears to have been published in his PhD. Plagiarism?

Food for thought / discussion

In one fragment, over a glass of wine, prof. Ponter mentions a scientific study on drinking wine(‘Health aspects of drinking one glass of wine each day’). What is the risk of a study beingsubsidized by the industry (wine industry)?

In another fragment, prof. Ponter elaborates on cancer research and mentions that pharmaindustry may not be very interested in finding a cheap drug to cure cancer. Regardless the moodand state in which he makes that statement, do you think there is any chance that corporatefunded research may be driven by an agenda that isn’t necessarily ethical.

Conflict-of-interest / corporate agenda’s

Dealing with integrity and ethical issues

Pierre Descartin is stalking prof. Ponter. What would be a more professional way of dealing withthis matter? What steps would you take if you are confronted with a breach of researchintegrity?

Bibliography and further reading

The Macquarie University Code for Responsible Conduct of Research: https://www.mq.edu.au/research/ethics-integrity-and-policies/research-integrity

Mayer T. and Stenek N., Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment, ed. World Scientific Publishing, 2012.

Fanelli D., How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data, PloS One, 4(5): 1-11, 2009.

Bauerlein M. et al, We Must Stop the Avalanche of Low-Quality Research, The Chronicle of Higher Education, June 13, 2010.

Langley C. and Parkinson S., Science and the corporate agenda: The detrimental effects of commercial influence on science and technology, Scientists for Global Responsibility, 2009, ISBN – 978-0-9549406-4-5.

Martinson B.C., Anderson M.S. and de Vries R, Scientists behaving badly, Nature 435(9): 737-8, 2005.

Sarewitz D., The pressure to publish pushes down quality, Nature 533: 147.

Kaiser M., The integrity of science – Lost in translation ?, Best Practice & Research Clinical Gastroenterology 28: 339-47, 2014.

Liu S.V., What drives scientists crazy and causes them to misconduct? The origin and evolution of modern scientific misconduct, Scientific Ethics 1(1): 53-8, 2006.

Nichols T., The death of expertise – The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters, Oxford University Press 2017.

Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy, On Being a Scientist – A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research, Third Edition, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C, 2009

Research Integrity and Ethics

Let’s discuss and keep discussing …

with peers, friends, supervisor, research integrity advisor, …

Appendix

Research Integrity ∈ Research Ethics

How independent and critical do you think and act ?The Milgram experiment

To answer the question how it was possible that Eichmann and a million ofGerman accomplices committed such horrible atrocities in the holocaust,Stanley Milgram and colleague conducted a psychological experiment.

The experiment was conducted in 1961, buthas been repeated many times since then.

Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67: 371-8.

In the Milgram experiment, three subjects are involved: Theexperimenter (E) orders the teacher (T), the subject of theexperiment, to give what the latter believes are painful electric shocksto a learner (victim) (L), who is in reality an actor and confederate.The subject believes that for each wrong answer, the learner wasreceiving actual electric shocks, though in reality there were no suchpunishments. Being separated from the subject, the confederate setup a tape recorder integrated with the electro-shock generator, whichplayed pre-recorded sounds for each shock level.

Stanley Milgram(1933-1984)

Learner (victim)Receives electroshocks (not real, it’s an actor)

Experimenter who orders the teacher(actor)

Teacher(test subject)

How independent and critical do you think and act ?The Milgram experiment

Video available at: https://vimeo.com/89396290

Voltage (V)

Slight shock Moderate shock Strong shock Very strong shock

Intenseshock

ExtremeIntense Shock

Danger: Severe Shock

XXX

Minimum Voltage (V)

All subjects gave at least 300 V !

More than 55% of the subjects went up to 450 V !

How independent and critical do you think and act ?Outcomes of the Milgram experiment

Milgram S. 1963, Behavioral Study of Obedience, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4): 371-8.

And … what would YOU have done ?

How independent and critical do you think and act ?Hannah Arendt

Jewish political theorist, 1906-1975

Arendt states that aside from a desire for improving his career, Eichmann was not driven byantisemitism nor psychological damage. Her subtitle famously introduced the phrase "the banalityof evil," which also serves as the final words of the book. In part, at least, the phrase refers toEichmann's deportment at the trial, displaying neither guilt nor hatred, claiming he bore noresponsibility because he was simply "doing his job" ("He did his duty...; he not only obeyedorders, he also obeyed the law."

Arendt suggests that this most strikingly discredits the idea that the Nazi criminals were manifestlypsychopathic and different from "normal" people. From this document, many concluded thatsituations such as the Holocaust can make even the most ordinary of people commit horrendouscrimes with the proper incentives, but Arendt adamantly disagreed with this interpretation, asEichmann was voluntarily following the Führerprinzip. Arendt insists that moral choice remainseven under totalitarianism, and that this choice has political consequences even when the chooseris politically powerless.

Research misconductA low percentage but with large consequences

Source: Fang et al, Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications, PNAS 109(42), 17028-33, 2012.

Stern AM et al, Financial costs and personal consequences of research misconduct resulting in retracted publications, eLife 3:e02956, 2014.

In the US: Estimated funding totals of all NIH grants that contributed to 291 retracted articles between 1992 – 2012:

$2,324,906,182

Research misconductA low percentage but with large consequences

Source: Fang et al, Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications, PNAS 109(42), 17028-33, 2012.

Thank you for coming!