• No results found

# 2/11/191

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2023

Share "2/11/191"

Copied!
11
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

Doonesbury

### Good scientific practise…

From Paul Kalas, Berkeley http://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/ethics/index.html

(2)

Y

X

A. Plot as is

B. Simply remove outlying point

C. Find a reason to move outlying point on to relation

D. Change scale on plot to avoid the outlying point

### Presenting your results

Y

X

A. Plot as is

B. Simply remove outlying point

C. Find a reason to move outlying point on to relation

D. Change scale on plot to avoid the outlying point

### Presenting your results

Y

X

A. Plot as is

B. Simply remove outlying point

C. Find a reason to move outlying point on to relation

D. Change scale on plot to avoid the outlying point

### Presenting your results

Y

A. Plot as is

B. Simply remove outlying point

C. Find a reason to move outlying point on to relation

D. Change scale on plot to avoid the outlying point

### Presenting your results

Y

A. Plot as is

B. Simply remove outlying point

C. Find a reason to move outlying point on to relation

D. Change scale on plot to avoid the outlying point

### Presenting your results

(3)

Red Giant Branch

White Dwarf Russell 1914, Nature, 93, 252

Absolute visual magnitude

Stellar type = temperature

### Spiral Nebulae

Schellen 1873 Messier 51

Charles Messier (1730-1817)

based on sketches made from looking through the telescope! no way to record the images…

van Maanen 1916 M101

### or beyond?

Hubble 1929 PNAS, 15, 168 H0= 500 km/s/kpc

(4)

### Variable Stars: accurate distances

Henrietta Leavitt (1868-1921)

Period-Luminosity relation (in Magellanic Clouds)

(m-MV)0 = 5log10d(pc) - 5 (+A) MV = -2.80 Log10 P -1.43

powerful distance indicator, still used today

Leavitt (1912) Harvard College Observatory Circular, 173, 1

Vdisp~6.5km/s -> M/L~30 DARK MATTER IN NEARBY DWARF GALAXIES

## Ethics in Scientific Research

Resources: -Resources for Research Ethics Education, -Michael Kalichman, U of California, San Diego -Office of Research Integrity, Federal Govt.

-The Netherlands Code of Conduct for Scientific Practise -Singapore Statement on Research Integrity -Eric Mazur ‘Small decisions, big consequences’

### Tamalika Banerjee (09-12-2014)

Zernike Institute for Advanced Materials

Material compiled by T. Banerjee & B. Noheda

(5)

•Science (Latin ‘knowledge’) is predicated on Trust

•Science cannot be done in isolation: we collaborate (nature or humans)

•THUSscientific contribution should be presented accurately such that their validity can be judged (critical in areas as health, national security, environment etc.)

### Research Misconduct

Reich:Nature 468,745,201 0; www.go.nature.com/kdmlsa

•Survey by Academies of Science in Europe and America and elsewhere- Frequency of misconduct ranges from 0.1-1% i.e 100-1000 cases/year

•Is Research misconduct an act of moral failure?

•Is misconduct a rare phenomenon and should be ignored?

-Pressure to publish

-Commercializat ion (Industry sponsored research) -Stronger competition for research funding -Assorted personal failings

-Some cases (students) genuinely unaware

•Research misconduct is thus not rare and generally harmful

-damaging to science, can mislead other scientists if results not replicable -harmful to individuals and society (for eg. release/use unsafe drugs,

inadequate instruments, erroneous procedures) -public money and public trust broken

### Research Misconduct

•No simple/straightforward logic

•Or is it a propensity of a person to simply behave badly aggravated by:

(6)

The South Korean scientist Hwang Woo- suk, rose to international acclaim in 2004 when he announced, in the journal Science, that he hadextracted stem cells from cloned human embryos. The following year, Hwang published results showing he hadmade stem cell lines from the skin of patients – a technique that could help create personalised cures for people with degenerative diseases. By 2006, however, Hwang's career was in tatters when it emerged that he had fabricated material for his research papers. Seoul National University sacked him and, after an investigation in 2009, he wasconvicted of embezzling research funds.

Papers retracted 2 years in prison Expelled and Barred

### A few Cases of Research Misconduct-I

A more recent incident of fraudulent science concerns Jan Hendrik Schön, a physicist at Bell Laboratories. Considered brilliant, Schön was on the fast track in the field of nanoelectronics. His name was even mentioned for a possible Nobel Prize.

But hisrate of publication (40 a year)and his amazing results began to make some colleagues curious. Eventually Schön was caught falsifying data whenhe presented identical graphs in two different papers - and the graphs were supposed to be on different topics. Bell Labs themselves initiated an investigation and were rightfully horrified to find gross misconduct.

Papers retracted PhD degree taken away

Plastic Fantastic: How the Biggest Fraud in Physics Shook the Scientific World

### A few Cases of Research Misconduct-II

Settingthe recordfor the most publications up for retraction by a single author, Japanese anesthesiologist Yoshitaka Fujii fabricated data in a whopping 172 papers. Beginning his career in falsification in 1993 whil e at the Tokyo Medical and Dental University, he continued it at the University of Tsukuba, and at Toho University in Tokyo, where he was finally dismissed in February 2012.

According to investigations, Fujii never actually saw the patients he reported in his clinical studies, failed to get ethical review board approval for his research, and misled co-authors, sometimes including their names without their permission or knowledge.

Papers retracted From ‘The Scientist’

### A few Cases of Research Misconduct-III

The case, which led to two scientific papers being retracted, came on the heels of an even bigger fraud, uncovered in 2013, perpetrated by the Dutch psychologist Diederik Stapel. He was found to have fabricated data for years and published it in at least 30 peer-reviewed papers, including a report in the journal Scienceabout how untidy environments may encourage discrimination.

The cases have sent shockwaves through a discipline that was already facing serious questions about plagiarism.

Stapel committed scientific fraud in at least 55 of his papers, as well as in 10 Ph.D. dissertations written by his students

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/diederik-stapels-audacious-academic- fraud.html?_r=1&

‘The Mind of a Con Man’

Amsterdam-Groningen-Tilburg

### Ethics in Scientific Research

Data Collection and Management

Collection, storage, protection and sharing of data such that their validity and accuracy can be verified.

Ownership issues: Some data must be shared with colleagues; other data must be protected.

Mentor and trainee’s responsibilities Responsibilities should be clear:

The role of the supervisor as teacher and advisor.

Your responsibility as group member (including work ownership)

Collaborative Research,

New responsibilities arise when researchers work with colleagues, in the same institution, at other institutions or in other countries:

Who does what?

How is the authorship in a paper going to be decided?

How should intellectual property agreements be worked out?

Which country or institution’s research policies should be followed?

How should project funds and project responsibilities be managed?

(7)

### • To allow others re-analyse

Planning and Conducting research

### • Special care should be taken if confidentiality needs to be preserved.

Planning and Conducting research

### Support for research is typically awarded to research institutions, not to individual researchers. This means that researchers do not own the data they produce.

Planning and Conducting research

### Data sharing

• Do not release data that have not been carefully validated or before you have informed all the people involved in the research.

• Researchers can withhold data until they have had time to establish their priority for their work thorough publication.

• Keeping data confidential prior to publication is a commonly accepted practice. Researchers do not have to release data immediately, even though this might speed the advance of knowledge (unless it is of immediate public interest).

• Once the results are published, it is expected that all the information about that experiment, including the final data, should be freely available for other researchers to check and use.

Planning and Conducting research

RDMPcourse December 27, 2018

1 Research Data Management Plan Monday 28 January 2019

• What is it?

• Why is it necessary?

1.1 In what circumstances does an RDMP play a role

• Suspicion of fraud

• Illness, passing away

• Dismissal (voluntarily, unvoluntarily) In those cases, the computer group should be able to:

• Retrieve the data

• Retrieve user made scripts and code sources

• Retrieve software packages and compilers so we need versions

• Have a probability P > 0 to reconstruct a result 1.2 Schedule

• A first version needs to be approved by head of computer group.

• Send mail with name of RDMP to be approved

• The final version needs to be approved by your supervisor before the final grading or sub- mission of the PhD manuscript.

1.3 The RDMP database https://rdmp.webhosting.rug.nl/

• Login with your personne6l number p123456

• Click on Create a new DMP or My DMPs 1. Introduction

• One can fill in an incomplete RDMP and submit

• After submission, a form can be re-activated later to add/change information

• Click on button with text Summary to get a printable overview of your RDMP 1

reactivate button 1.3.1 RDMP Questions 1

• 1 Introduction: Read and agree.

• 1.1 Title

• 1.2 Supervisor

• 1.3 Start date

• 1.4 Description -- A few lines only

• 1.5 Existing data

• 1.5.1 Description existing data -- Describe how one can obtain the data 1.4 RDMP Questions 2

• 1.6 Data already processed?

• 1.6.1 Description processed data

• 1.7 Do you plan to process data?

• 1.7.1 Description how to process the data

• 1.8 Simulations?

• 1.8.1 Description of the simulations

• 1.10 Additional thesis information

• 1.9 Data used in thesis 1.5 Where to store your data

• Don’t leave it on cloud disks (backups are ok)

• Tar and compress data if it is big (> 2 GB)

• Store it on your RDMP partition

• If not visible as RDMP folder use ln -s /rdmp_data/users/vogelman/ RDMP

• If amount of data is big, then leave it where it is but describe how to access it 1.6 Backups

• A data disk in a work station has a backup on a mirror disk or on a data server 2

### • When does a trainee become an independent researcher?

Planning and Conducting research

(8)

### • how authorship and ownership are established.

Planning and Conducting research

### • live by agreements established for authorship and ownership.

Basic idea: Mentors invest time and resources in trainees. Trainees should use time and use resources responsibly.

Planning and Conducting research

### Collaborative research

Roles defined at the start:

• the goals and anticipated outcomes

• role in the collaboration

• how data will be collected, stored, and shared

• who will be responsible for writing the papers

• the criteria that will be used to identify and rank contributing authors

• who will be responsible for submitting reports

• who will be responsible for speaking publicly

• how intellectual property rights and ownership issues will be resolved

-In case of a questionable authorship, discuss contribution -Familiarize with Institution and journal policies

-If you can’t agree engage a trusted colleague/ombudsman

Nature 489, 592, 2012 Planning and Conducting research

### Allocation of Credit

-Who should be an author?

Not easily answered.

Methods vary greatly in academia, even within the same institution.

Authorship is based on ‘substantial’ contribution but define ‘substantial’.

-Are there are specific norms?

Some emphasize: having the work done

Others: on the idea, the experimental design, data interpretation, Somewhere: it depends on discretion of principal investigator Elsewhere: collectively decided.

### Allocation of Credit

(9)

• Honorary authorship: No agreement exist and honorary authorship is a significant problem in research publication today

Some researchers are listed on publications because they:

– are the chair of the department or program in which the research was conducted,

– provided funding for the research, – are the leading researcher in the area, – provided reagents, or

– served as a mentor to the primary author.

### Allocation of Credit

Allocation of Credit

### - read and agreed to the manuscript before publications and agrees on authorship

Allocation of Credit

### Publication (mis)practices

Salami publication. (Sometimes called trivial publication) is the practice of dividing one significant piece of research into a number of small experiments. It wastes valuable time and resources.

Duplicate publication. Is the practice of publishing the same information a second time without acknowledging the first publication.

Premature or exaggerated public statements. Researchers should follow standard publication practices when making research results public and not issue premature public statements about their work before it has been reviewed.

And of course Plagiarism, which is a clear crime punished by law.

Allocation of Credit

### The Netherlands Code of Conduct

The Netherlands Code of Conduct for Scientific Practise

-Established by the General Board of the Association of Universities (came into force as from Jan1, 2005)

Preamble:

vScrupulousness (unaffected by mounting pressure to achieve) vReliability (performance/reporting of research)

vVerifiability (published research –data/conclusions) vImpartiality (only scientific interest/accountability) vIndependence (restrictions should be stated)

### Ethics in Scientific Research Plagiarism

Nature 481, 21, 2012

(10)

‘Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s idea, processes, results or words without giving appropriate credit, including those obtained through confidential review of other’s research proposals and manuscripts’

### Plagiarism

(Office of Research Integrity, US)

•Plagiarism of ideas (superficial modification without crediting the source)

•Plagiarism of text (verbatim without inserting it in quotation marks)

•Plagiarism and common knowledge

•Self plagiarism (duplication…) (Widespread) Manifestations:

-Scientific writing (clarity/concise)

-A scientist making a presentation at a conference discusses idea/concept that is proposed by someone else and not considered common knowledge.

-Research grants

-The same with presenting/publishing data

Serious form of misconduct (demotion/dismissal/withdrawal of degree, honors).

Plagiarism

•Acknowledge source (paraphrase, summarize, enclose it in quotations)

•When in doubt as to whether a concept or fact is common knowledge provide a citation

•Become aware of copyright law (can constitute copyright infringement)

### Plagiarism

(Office of Research Integrity, US)

•Faster process for identifying and retracting plagiarized publications

•Detection software's + thorough peer-reviewing

•Flag plagiarized studies Nature 481, 21, 2012

Plagiarism

The growth also owes a lot to the emergence of software for easily detecting plagiarism and image manipulation, combined with the greater number of readers that the Internet brings to research papers.

### Whistle blowing

ØIf you have witnessed a misconduct please act.

ØAny allegation of misconduct is a very important charge

ØEven a single case of misconduct can malign scientists/the whistleblower/ institutions, shake public confidence in the integrity of science.

ØIn universities, faculty advisors, department chairs, and other senior faculty can be invaluable sources of advice in deciding whether to go forward with a complaint ØUniversities often have an ombudsman, ethics officer or other officials who can deal such complaints in the strictest confidence

Not an easy thing to do: where to go, whom to confide in…

. .

### Whistle blowing

(11)

https://www.astro.rug.nl/~etolstoy/integrity/

Session 2 25th February 2019), 13-15, room 257

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

Zo liggen de gemiddelde IR scores uit het onderzoek van Gray en Gillies (2015) rond de 60, terwijl de IR score in het onderzoek van Serafeim (2015) 39 is (waar beide

Deze ondernemingen hebben niets toegelicht over de informatie welke door organisaties die bezig zijn met het ontwikkelen van Integrated Reporting belangrijk wordt

In order to structure the questionnaire, it was divided into three parts, all related to a certain subgroup of the questions presented above: the first part was

Hierdie stappe wat ge- neem is, is tot voordeel van die studente omdat die pryse as gevolg daar- van gehou kon word op die indeks wat hulle sak pas.. Terselfdertyd kan gemeld word

and lay persons ought to be involved in the lives of those struggling with marital problems or divorce and help them to reach reconciliation and build a better and

This question will be answered by focussing on how international parental child abductions are dealt with at present and whether the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of

Sao Paulo: Editora Fiel da Missao Evangelica Literaria.. Wealth and Poverty (In

The objective of this study is to explore the effect of the nitrogen application rate (from 25 to 300 kg N ha −1 ), nitrogen form (inorganic N or manure N), tillage