Responsible Science Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process: Volume II (1993) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
9 Rules and Guidelines for Responsible Conduct of Research
9 Rules and Guidelines for Responsible Conduct of Research
Pages 159-200
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 159... ...
All of us need to have a clear appreciation of the basic values of science and scholarship, and we must articulate these values clearly to our students. We found that principles of ethical research conduct are not often explicitly discussed during the early phases of education of young scholars.
|
From page 160... ...
In addition, there is a range of questionable or improper research practices that we do not include in either research misconduct or general misconduct, but which can negatively affect the research enterprise, compromise the responsibilities of universities, and violate ethical standards. We present a set of generic research practices and urge discussions in departments and laboratories to establish f~eld-specific details and to determine at what thresholds deviations from these practices constitute improper or questionable research practices.
|
From page 161... ...
In this report, we set out what we believe to be the consensus of the MIT community regarding the values that must be upheld in research conduct. We make specific recommendations for programs of education in research conduct.
|
From page 162... ...
findings and Conclusions The committee found widespread recognition of our dual responsibility: that of educating the next generation of scientists and scholars for their professional responsibilities and of ensuring that the research and scholarship done on our campus meet the highest standards of integrity. We found that principles of ethical research conduct are not often explicitly discussed during the early phases of education of young scholars.
|
From page 163... ...
However, allegations of research misconduct cannot be informally resolved nor are they proper for a process of mediation. Effective institutional response to allegations of research misconduct in research carried out at MIT places the responsibility for initial inquiry with the department head but provides central resources to ensure proper procedures and institutional memory.
|
From page 164... ...
9. That the department head submit all proposed plans and procedures for inquiries into allegations of research misconduct to the Office of the Provost for approval before the process is initiated; that the process to be followed in conducting inquiries and investigations be the responsibility of a specially designated individual~s)
|
From page 165... ...
We believe that the establishment of our committee represents an opportunity for the MTT community to engage in discussions about the shared values it holds in the conduct of research and in the education of students, and we recommend that the MIT faculty and administration make explicit their commitment to academic integrity and to the establishment and maintenance not only of proper research conduct but also of an environment in which both research and teaching can be carried out effectively. We doubt that a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the environment for research and the occurrence of research misconduct can be established.
|
From page 166... ...
We intend our discussions of research integrity to apply more broadly to scholarship and scholars throughout the Institute, including creative activities such as design in our definition of research. In some cases we must speak more specifically to science in responding to regulations governing the use of federal funds or in discussing research practices.
|
From page 167... ...
Federal laws and regulations governing the treatment of personnel and the environment for career advancement affect the freedom of action of laboratory directors and individual investigators, as do MTT's own policies with respect to our responsibilities to students, faculty colleagues, and Institute staff. All of us need to understand better the changes in the environment for the conduct of research, and we need to respond effectively to these changes.
|
From page 168... ...
While it is clearly desirable to be first in reporting research results, this should not be done at the cost of "cutting corners." Scientists must take appropriate care to ensure the integrity and accuracy of their work. An important aspect of research practice is the proper reporting of the results of one's work.
|
From page 169... ...
Secrecy is antithetical to the tradition of university research that basic knowledge obtained in research and scholarly endeavors should be available to all. Since the education of young scholars comes in part from participation in the debate that typically occurs in a collegial research environment as new ideas and results are described, proprietary and classified research in universities is detrimental to the objectives of education.
|
From page 170... ...
A different term, scientific misconduct, is used in regulations that govern research supported by certain federal agencies. The definitions of scientific misconduct used by two federal agencies as a basis for their regulations are as follows: PHS Policies awl Procedures Misconduct or misconduct in science is defined as fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research.
|
From page 171... ...
171 Fabrication is presenting fictitious data or results; falsification is altering data or results, including selective omission of data without scientific or scholarly justification; and plagiarism is using the words or ideas of others without acknowledgment. The definitions of scientific misconduct above also include "other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community." The federal government has looked to the scientific community to define such practices in reaching judgments about specific cases that occur on university campuses.
|
From page 172... ...
Because existing complaint and disciplinary procedures can address these issues, we do not consider Be issue of institutional responses to allegations of general misconduct to be a part of our charge nor do we include this category under research misconduct. However, because federal regulations quoted earlier define scientific misconduct to include behaviors we would consider general misconduct, such as retaliation against people who allege misconduct, a determination of which situations require the procedures and reports mandated by federal regulation must be made in each case.
|
From page 173... ...
We believe Cat discussing such research practices in research groups will contribute to our educational programs and that most disputes arising within groups about deviations from good practice should be resolved by informal discussions or mediation.
|
From page 174... ...
Each student engaged in research should have a designated primary research mentor. It is the responsibility of this mentor to
|
From page 175... ...
From our discussions with a variety of faculty, postdocs, and graduate students, we found that principles of ethical research conduct are not often explicitly discussed during the early phases of education of young scholars. Rather, individuals are left to develop their own personalized code of behavior, based in part on personal values and in part through specific examples set by their mentors.
|
From page 176... ...
While we believe that this report represents a first step toward increasing Me awareness of all members of the MIT community regarding the many issues of academic responsibility and research conduct that face us in the 1990s, we also believe that in order to sustain this awareness and further improve the community's understanding of these issues, the report should be followed by the establishment of specific educational programs. Because of the importance of mentorship in the establishment of values of ethical research conduct, we think it is critical that members of the faculty, both senior and junior, develop an enhanced level of awareness of ethical issues that confront scholars at all levels of experience, and
|
From page 177... ...
Since the fundamental responsibility for educational programs in research conduct rests with the department, we recommend that each department form a working group to reflect on current practices, the values they promote, and changes in practices that would improve education and research, particularly with respect to the specific research conducted by members of that department. An important role of departmental working groups would be to develop specific educational programs as well as to discuss some of the less well defined roots of interpersonal conflict that lead to general problems within research laboratories.
|
From page 178... ...
Although there will be a few areas in which all will readily agree, individual, field, and group-specific differences in research practices will quickly emerge. These discussions can reveal that such issues are invariably complex, that reasonable individuals can differ in their point of view, that a common framework exists within which these issues can be debated, that such issues are proper to discuss and debate in a research environment, and that individual faculty are open to discussions with students about their concerns.
|
From page 179... ...
Mon ay she said she had an id ' '' that might',.help :me find the. co-activator 'for my: DNA binding protein-.
|
From page 180... ...
7~ ME Sit ~ ~ 1 I'm ~ ~"~:~=I~'~\'\~=~:~*
|
From page 181... ...
Atom A ~ ~, 767 ~ ~)
|
From page 183... ...
As a result of several highly visible cases of alleged scientific misconduct, additional federal regulations have been established governing institutional response to charges of scientific misconduct. The regulations governing investigations of allegations of scientific misconduct in research supported by NSF or NTH require notification of ~e research sponsor at an early stage in the process, at the point when formal investigation of an allegation of scientific misconduct begins.
|
From page 184... ...
. Departmental Guidelines for Students." VIl.2 Resolving Disputes and Allegations About Research Conduct Disputes are normal, inevitable, and often welcome elements of academic research.
|
From page 185... ...
Under such circumstances, an important role for the individual from whom advice is sought is to assist in the articulation of specific elements of concern, and in particular to identify allegations of research misconduct and differentiate them from other types of disputes or accusations. ~r VIl.3 Informal Resolution and Mediation Since MIT is required to formally inquire into all allegations of scientific misconduct in research funded by NSF and NTH, allegations of research misconduct cannot be informally resolved nor are they proper for a process of mediation.
|
From page 186... ...
particularly isolated and fear that mere questions about their behavior create doubt concerning their scientific capabilities or their abilities as research supervisors and mentors. Several departments have established a committee or designated individual faculty to act as confidants, informal mediators, and advisors for individuals who wish to bring concerns in an informal way.
|
From page 187... ...
If the inquiry committee is appropriately charged, then depending on their findings, their report can serve either as a oasis ror a department head's decision with respect to possible research misconduct or as a basis for a mediated settlement. We therefore recommend that MIT move to establish procedures for mediation as a part of its procedures for dispute resolution and that consideration be given to application of the principles of mediation in the inquiry process when appropriate.
|
From page 188... ...
Procedures for Responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct Federal regulations require an inquiry as the first element of institutional response to charges of scientific misconduct in research supported by NSF or NTH. We view the setting up and conducting of inquiries as one of the most difficult phases of institutional response to charges of research misconduct.
|
From page 189... ...
~ - i' 1 · - - ~u ~ - -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ After reviewing a number or cases aria examining urn Us; u~w by a substantial number of universities, we make the following recommendations concerning the initiation of an inquiry: That the responsibility for inquiring into allegations of research misconduct be vested in heads of departments and interdepartmental laboratories or comparable administrative units; that this normally be done by setting up a fact-finding pane! whose report provides the basis on which the head decides what further steps are appropriate, including a recommendation to the provost that a formal investigation is warranted; and further that the department head submit all proposed plans and procedures for inquiries into allegations of research misconduct to the Office of the Provost for approval before the process is initiated; that the process to be followed in conducting inquiries and investigations be the responsibility of a specially designated individualts)
|
From page 190... ...
First, it limits the scope and responsibility of the inquiry committee, charging them to focus on the key elements of their task: evaluation of evidence and finding of fact. It places the judgmental role with the department head, and the provost.
|
From page 191... ...
This individual plays no further role in the process: would not be called as a witness, would not continually furnish information, and would not be informed about the progress of the case. In the second branch the complainant becomes a principal in the case, putting forward the initial allegation, providing documentary evidence and testimony to the inquiry and investigation committees, and receiving and responding to sections of committee reports that deal with issues raised by the complainant.
|
From page 192... ...
The product of the inquiry process is a written report from the committee in response to their charge, accompanied by the decision of the department head to recommend to the provost whether a formal investigation of a charge of research misconduct is warranted, using the standards prescribed by law and by MIT policy. The department head may decide that although there is no evidence of research misconduct, other violations of Institute policies may have occurred and may recommend to the provost that an internal investigation be initiated to deal with allegations and possible sanctions by internal procedures.
|
From page 193... ...
typically upon recommendation of the department head, generally following an inquiry. The Institute must at this stage notify NSF or NTH if they are involved in funding the research in question; the regulations also require notification at the allegation stage under certain circumstances.
|
From page 194... ...
that the inquiry committee had gathered and would also collect additional data as appropriate. The evidence that the committee would be expected to gather and evaluate is data that faculty members have competence to evaluate: research data in its various forms, publications and drafts, direct testimony from witnesses, financial records, correspondence, logs, and other laboratory records.
|
From page 195... ...
If, in the course of a careful examination of the evidence directly related to the initial charge, the investigation committee comes across serious evidence of possible misconduct that was not known by the complainant or uncovered during the inquiry, then this becomes part of the investigation. The accused must be kept informed of the issues being considered by the committee.
|
From page 196... ...
In cases involving students, MIT has decided to hold in abeyance a student discipline case when the student was also under possible indictment by a court for the same incident. In the case of scientific misconduct, we are not free to do this because of the time limits set by the agencies and our responsibilities to carry through the federally mandated process.
|
From page 197... ...
Alternatively, individuals who raise allegations maliciously may be guilty of general misconduct. We recommend that MIT ensure a supportive environment for individuals who come forward with concerns about research conduct, and that specific provisions to ensure the protection of complainants who act in good faith be a part of the plan for conducting an inquiry into allegations of research misconduct and be submitted to the Office of the Provost before the inquiry is initiated.
|
From page 198... ...
We also believe that there is a need to establish a formal mechanism to ensure institutional memory for these Issues. Some of the important functions requiring such institutional memory are to provide assistance and advice to a department head concerning the selection of and the charge to a committee of inquiry; to foster consistency of procedures and standards across departments; to brief committees of inquiry and investigation as to their charge, evaluation of evidence, standards of proof, and fair process requirements; to ensure
|
From page 199... ...
Therefore, we have recommended above that MIT establish a function within the Office of the Provost to guide the processes of responding to allegations of research misconduct. The earlier section of our report on responding to allegations can be interpreted as sewing up procedures for these processes.
|
From page 200... ...
We endorse MTT's efforts to join with other universities, professional societies, and individual members of the scientific community in working cooperatively with federal agencies to improve procedures for the federal response to allegations of scientific misconduct. The past few years have seen considerable turmoil surrounding the issue of institutional response to allegations of scientific misconduct.
|
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.