Responsible Science Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process: Volume II (1993) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
3 Mentorship and the Research Training Experience
3 Mentorship and the Research Training Experience
Pages 66-78
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 66... ...
In practice, however, the ways in which primary data (i.e., raw data collected directly from experiments) , derived results (conclusions, distillations, interpretations)
|
From page 67... ...
The results of these measurements are commonly susceptible to statistical analysis, and more often than not, introduction into computerized data banks for storage, analysis, and retrieval. Examples of such "survey data" include clinical trials of drug regimens, DNA sequencing, epidemiological studies, other types of population studies, ecological surveys, and gathering of x-ray crystallographic data.
|
From page 68... ...
Examples of such manipulative experimentation include projects designed to clone a gene, develop a genetically complex organismic strain, or purify a protein and examine its mechanism of action. Derived Results and Conclusions Both survey and manipulative data serve as objects for distillation and interpretation, leading in turn to concepts and conclusions that may not be apparent upon cursory examination of the primary data.
|
From page 69... ...
In particular, the primary manipulative data of one scientist are almost without exception useless to another since such primary data record a unique experimental path that would in general never be precisely retraced by another. In the case of survey data, there exist certain possibilities for constructive use of the raw data of others.
|
From page 70... ...
It would seem that critical examination of a peer's raw data might frequently reveal instances in which primary data have been misinterpreted in the course of deriving conclusions. In practice this almost never occurs when examining manipulative data and only infrequently occurs during He (rare)
|
From page 71... ...
The suggestions by some commentators that many types of scientific data should be incorporated into computerized data banks and subjected to periodic auditing seem to be dramatically out of touch with the realities of scientific data collection, storage, and evaluation. Raw data of the manipulative sort are, with rare exception, not susceptible to formatting and storage in computerized data bases.
|
From page 72... ...
. While some might rationalize these cultural differences in terms of the logistical and functional demands of the various research subspecialties, such functional pressures have proven far less important than the precedents established by the leaders of each field, each acting on the basis of what he/she has perceived to be acceptable and desirable standards of professional behavior.
|
From page 73... ...
Having invested great effort in establishing a preeminent position in solving the first parts of a particular problem, an investigator may be reluctant to dissipate this initial advantage by making reagents rapidly available to all interested parties, including those competitors who, though benefiting greatly from the availability of such a reagent, have devoted no effort to its creation. For these reasons, rules that some might propose that would rigidly dictate the rapid distribution of all research reagents following their creation may act to seriously reduce the motivations of those who have created these reagents as vital precursors to subsequent steps of their own planned research program.
|
From page 74... ...
Research reagents may often be given out as gestures of goodwill with the hope that reciprocity will be practiced by the recipient on some future occasion. Finally, several research journals now require that reagents described in research reports published in their journal be made available to other qualified investigators following publication.
|
From page 75... ...
Because of increasing pressure from journal editors, many such unique reagents are becoming freely available within weeks or several months of their description in He published literature (see above)
|
From page 76... ...
In these cases, it is often difficult for other peers to sort out the donor's contributions to the project from those of the recipient who actually carried out the work. Given recently developed cloning, sequencing, and antibody generation techniques, the proportion of research reagents that remain unique (i.e., not readily replicated independently by others)
|
From page 77... ...
Thus, any stipulations placed on the distribution of reagents are becoming unenforceable and unreasonable. Here, even though phrases like "collaboration" may be interspersed in He initial conversations preceding exchange of the reagent, a real collaboration rarely ensues since both parties realize that a full-fledged collaboration would be an unreasonable quid pro quo for a reagent that has only minimal intrinsic value by virtue of its easy replicability.
|
From page 78... ...
. Because of all this, it seems clear that any convention that may eventually be promulgated in order to impose standardized data ownership and/or storage practices will not arise because of operational requirements of the research itself, but because of extra-scientif~c considerations such as the need to make all research programs easily accessible to those interested in auditing them, or to document patent claims that may derive from such research.
|
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.