Responsible Science Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process: Volume I (1992) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
2 SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND RESEARCH PRACTICES
2 SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND RESEARCH PRACTICES
Pages 36-66
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 36... ...
The basic and particular principles that guide scientific research practices exist primarily in an unwritten code of ethics. Although some have proposed that these principles should be written down and formalized,2 the principles and traditions of science are, for the most part, conveyed to successive generations of scientists through example, discussion, and informal education.
|
From page 37... ...
Research fields that yield highly replicable results, such as ordinary organic chemical structures, are quite different from fields such as cellular immunology, which are in a much earlier stage of development and accumulate much erroneous or uninterpretable material before the pieces fit together coherently. When a research field is too new or
|
From page 38... ...
When a hypothesis has survived repeated opportunities for disproof and when competing hypotheses have been eliminated as a result of failure to produce the predicted consequences, that hypothesis may become the accepted theory explaining the original facts. Scientific theories are also predictive.
|
From page 39... ...
What counts as good evidence may be more or less well-defined after a new discipline or specialty is formed; however, at revolutionary stages in science, when new theories and techniques are being put forward, when standards have yet to be negotiated, scientists are less certain as to what others may require of them to be deemed competent and convincing. Explicit statements of the values and traditions that guide research practice have evolved through the disciplines and have been given in textbooks on scientific methodologies.4 In the past few decades, many scientific and engineering societies representing individual disciplines have also adopted codes of ethics (see Volume II of this report for examples)
|
From page 40... ...
The nature of particular scientific disciplines and the traditions of organizing a specific body of scientific knowledge; 3. The example of individual scientists, particularly those who hold positions of authority or respect based on scientific achievements; 4.
|
From page 41... ...
And the British physicist and sociologist of science John Ziman, in an article synthesizing critiques of Merton's formulation, has specified a set of structural factors in the bureaucratic and corporate research environment that impede the realization of that particular set of norms: the proprietary nature of research, the local importance and funding of research, the authoritarian role of the research manager, commissioned research, and the required expertise in understanding how to use modern instruments (Ziman, 1990~. It is clear that the specific influence of norms on the development of scientific research practices is simply not known and that further study of key determinants is required, both theoretically and empirically.
|
From page 42... ...
Disciplinary departments rely primarily on informal social and professional controls to promote responsible behavior and to penalize deviant behavior. These controls, such as social ostracism, the denial of letters of support for future employment, and the withholding of research resources, can deter and penalize unprofessional behavior within research institutions.7 Many scientific societies representing individual disciplines have adopted explicit standards in the form of codes of ethics or guidelines governing, for example, the editorial practices of their journals and other publications.8 Many societies have also established procedures for enforcing their standards.
|
From page 43... ...
Research directors and department chairs, by virtue of personal example, thus can reinforce, or weaken, the power of disciplinary standards and scientific norms to affect research practices. To the extent that the behavior of senior scientists conforms with general expectations for appropriate scientific and disciplinary practice, the research system is coherent and mutually reinforcing.
|
From page 44... ...
Government Regulations and Policies Government agencies have developed specific rules and procedures that directly affect research practices in areas such as laboratory safety, the treatment of human and animal research subjects, and the use of toxic or potentially hazardous substances in research. But policies and procedures adopted by some government research agencies to address misconduct in science (see Chapter 5)
|
From page 45... ...
These attitudes have included greater skepticism of the authority of experts and broader expectations about the need for visible mechanisms to assure proper research practices, especially in areas that affect the public welfare. Social attitudes are also having a more direct influence on research practices as science achieves a more prominent and public role in society.
|
From page 46... ...
The failure to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate sources of bias in research practices can lead to erosion of public trust in the autonomy of the research enterpr~se. RESEARCH PRACTICES In reviewing modern research practices for a range of disciplines, and analyzing factors that could affect the integrity of the research process, the panel focused on the following four areas: 1.
|
From page 47... ...
Research training and mentorship. 47 Commonly understood practices operate in each area to promote responsible research conduct; nevertheless, some questionable research practices also occur.
|
From page 48... ...
The 1985 report Sharing Research Data concluded that the general principle of data sharing is widely accepted, especially in the behavioral and social sciences (NRC, 1985~. The report catalogued the benefits of data sharing, including maintaining the integrity of the research process by providing independent opportunities for verification, refutation, or refinement of original results and data; promoting new research and the development and testing of new theories; and encouraging appropriate use of empirical data in policy formulation and evaluation.
|
From page 49... ...
Formal rules or guidelines concerning their disposition are rare. Many laboratories customarily store primary data for a set period (often 3 to 5 years)
|
From page 50... ...
A few universities have also considered the creation of central storage repositories for all primary data collected by their research investigators. Some government research institutions and industrial research centers maintain such repositories to safeguard the record of research developments for scientific, historical, proprietary, and national security interests.
|
From page 51... ...
Computer technology can enhance research collaboration; it can also create new impediments to data sharing resulting from increased costs, the need for specialized equipment, or liabilities or uncertainties about responsibilities for faulty data, software, or computer-generated models. Advances in computer technology may assist in maintaining and preserving accurate records of research data.
|
From page 52... ...
Although research publications continue to document research findings, the appearance of electronic publications and other information technologies heralds change. In addition, incidents of plagiarism, the increasing number of authors per article in selected fields, and the methods by which publications are assessed in determining appointments and promotions have all increased concerns about the traditions and practices that have guided communication and publication.
|
From page 53... ...
Another practice, common in biology, is to list the senior author last. Appropriate recognition for the contributions of junior investigators, postdoctoral fellows, and graduate students is sometimes a source of discontent and unease in the contemporary research environment.
|
From page 54... ...
Authorship practices are further complicated by large-scale projects, especially those that involve specialized contributions. Mission teams for space probes, oceanographic expeditions, and projects in highenergy physics, for example, all involve large numbers of senior scientists who depend on the long-term functioning of complex equipment.
|
From page 55... ...
Some institutions, including the National Library of Medicine and professional societies that represent editors of scientific journals, are exploring the development of standards relevant to these obligations (Bailer et al., 1990~. Should questions be raised about the integrity of a published work, the editor may request an author's institution to address the matter.
|
From page 56... ...
Although the system of peer review is generally effective, it has been suggested that the quality of refereeing has declined, that selfinterest has crept into the review process, and that some journal editors and reviewers exert inappropriate influence on the type of work they deem publishable.23 Correction of Errors At some level, all scientific reports, even those that mark profound advances, contain errors of fact or interpretation. In part, such errors reflect uncertainties intrinsic to the research process itself a hypothesis is formulated, an experimental test is devised, and based on the interpretation of the results, the hypothesis is refined, revised, or discarded.
|
From page 57... ...
SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND RESEARCH PRACTICES 57 3. Experimental design a product of the background and expertise of the investigator.
|
From page 58... ...
Other forces, such as competition, commercial interest, funding trends and availability, or pressure to publish may also erode the role of replication as a mechanism for fostering integrity in the research process. The panel is unaware of any quantitative studies of this issue.
|
From page 59... ...
Research Training and Mentorship The panel defined a mentor as that person directly responsible for the professional development of a research trainee.25 Professional development includes both technical training, such as instruction in the methods of scientific research (e.g., research design, instrument use, and selection of research questions and data) , and socialization in basic research practices (e.g., authorship practices and sharing of research data)
|
From page 60... ...
But as only one contribution to the efforts of a large research team, a graduate students work may become highly specialized, leading to a narrowing of experience and greater dependency on senior personnel; in a period when the availability of funding may limit research opportunities, laboratory heads may find it necessary to balance research decisions for the good of the team against the individual educational interests of each trainee. Moreover, the demands of obtaining sufficient resources to maintain a laboratory in the contemporary research environment often separate faculty from their trainees.
|
From page 61... ...
Although faculty may receive indirect rewards from the contributions of welltrained graduate students to their own research as well as the satisfaction of seeing their students excelling elsewhere, these rewards may not be sufficiently significant in tenure or promotion decisions. When institutional policies fail to recognize and reward the value of good teaching and mentorship, the pressures to maintain stable funding for research teams in a competitive environment can overwhelm the time allocated to teaching and mentorship by a single investigator.
|
From page 62... ...
In order to foster good mentorship practices for all research trainees, many groups and institutions have taken steps to clarify the nature of individual and institutional responsibilities in the mentor-trainee relationship.27 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The self-regulatory system that characterizes the research process has evolved from a diverse set of principles, traditions, standards, and customs transmitted from senior scientists, research directors, and department chairs to younger scientists by example, discussion, and informal education. The principles of honesty, collegiality, respect for others, and commitment to dissemination, critical evaluation, and rigorous training are characteristic of all the sciences.
|
From page 63... ...
But modifications are necessary to foster integrity in a changing research environment, to handle cases of misconduct in science, and to discourage questionable research practices. · Individual scientists have a fundamental responsibility to ensure that their results are reproducible, that their research is reported thoroughly enough so that results are reproducible, and that significant errors are corrected when they are recognized.
|
From page 64... ...
8. For a full discussion of the roles of scientific societies in fostering responsible research practices, see the background paper prepared by Mark Frankel, "Professional Societies and Responsible Research Conduct," in Volume II of this report.
|
From page 65... ...
25. Much of the discussion on mentorship is derived from a background paper prepared for the panel by David Guston.
|
From page 66... ...
66 RESPONSIBLE SCIENCE mentoring relationship. For other discussions on mentorship, see the paper by David Guston in Volume II of this report.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.