MNSES Deborah Oughton Department of Plant and Environmental Science University of Oslo s Ethics Programme

Transcription

1 RESEARCH ETHICS MNSES 9100 Deborah Oughton Department of Plant and Environmental Science University of Oslo s Ethics Programme deborah.oughton@umb.no

2 RESEACH ETHICS MNS SES9100 De borah Oughto on Why is research ethics important? History New knowledge/technology creates new ethical problems Science (and scientific reasoning) plays a significant role in public policy and has a powerful impact on society Worries about scientific misconduct 2

3 3 RESEACH ETHICS MNS SES9100 De borah Oughto on Misconduct and Fraud in Norway Jon Sudbø Paper published in the Lancet October Sudbø admitted fabrication of data January 2006 Independent commission appointed January 2006 to investigate all papers, including PhD and co-authors (60) Report in June 2006 found that 13 articles needed to be withdrawn UiO withrew PhD in December 2006 Authorisation as a doctor and dentist withdrew in November 2006 Now working as assistant dentist in Seljord

4 11 mistenkt for juks SKUFFET D k Fi G B Wi l ff t i t k k f k bl t d kt d ti di t l li SKUFFET: Dekan Finn Georg B. Wisløff tar mistanken om eksamensfusk blant doktorgradsstipendiatene alvorlig. OTO: Brian Olguin

5 RESEACH ETHICS MNS SES9100 De borah Oughto Ethics of Scientific Research Ethics s The philosophical study of right and wrong conduct and the rules and principles p that ought to guide it ( the oughts and the shoulds ). on Scientific Research The conduct of scientists 5

6 RESEACH ETHICS MNS SES9100 Deb borah Oughto on Potential ti Conflicts of Interest t (Shrader-Frechette) h Scientists, their peers and colleagues Scientists and students Industry and the scientific community Scientists and research subjects Researchers and the public Researchers and the environment Western and developing countries 6

7 RESEACH ETHICS MNS SES9100 De borah Oughto on Research Ethics: Three areas of responsibility Scientific community: research norms, misconduct, publication Research subjects: humans, animals Society: the public, environment, patents, technological l risk 7

8 8 RESEACH ETHICS MNS SES9100 Deb borah Oughto on A brief history of Research Ethics - I Hippocratic Oath Charles Babbage (1830) Reflections on the decline of science in England Cooking, Trimming, Forging of data Nüremberg Trials ( ) 1946) Helsinki-deklarasjon (1964) Robert Merton ( ) CUDOS norms

9 RESEACH ETHICS MNS SES9100 De borah Oughto on Scientific Norms (Robert Merton) Communalism: knowledge produced by science should be available to all; that scientific results are the common property of the entire scientific community Universalism: claims to truth are evaluated in terms of universal or impersonal criteria, and not on the basis of race, class, gender, religion, or nationality; all scientists can contribute to science regardless of race, nationality, culture, or gender Disinterestedness: Objectivity; Non-biased, free from ideology Originality: i Research should be novel and add something to our knowledge and understanding. Scepticism: Results should be vigorously tested 9 CUDOS Ziman, Is Science losing its objectivity? Nature

10 10 RESEACH ETHICS MNS SES9100 Deb borah Oughto on A Brief History of Research Ethics - II 1945 First Atomic bomb test s Reports of ethical mistreatment of research subjects and research fraud 1962 Rachel Carson Silent Spring Environmentalism, Animal rights, Bhopal, Chernobyl, Scientific fraud 1990s- Biotechnology, genetic engineering, nanotechnology, 2000s- Synthetic Life, Fukushima Dolly, library.thinkquest.org

11 RESEACH ETHICS MNS SES9100 De borah Oughto on Research Fraud and Misconduct What is research fraud? Why does it happen? How often does it happen? How is it controlled? 11

12 RESEACH ETHICS MNS SES9100 Deb borah Oughto on The Patchwork Mouse (1974) William T. Summerlin Chief of transplantation immunology at Sloan-Kettering Claimed he could transplant onto animals corneas, glands, and skin that would normally be rejected sometimes even across species. The fraud discovered after three years when a lab assistant noticed that the black skin graphs were drawn on with a marker. 12 my error was not in knowingly promulgating false data, but rather in succumbing to extreme pressure placed on me by the institute director to publish information".

13 Famous Frauds in Science The Piltdown Man ( ) Cyril Burt (twin study 1943) Hwang Woo-Suk (cloning) RESEACH ETHICS MNSES9100 Deborah Oughton NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES 13

14 RESEACH ETHICS MNS SES9100 De borah Oughto on Case study: The Baltimore Affair A case of data manipulation and fraud accusations between scientists t that t shocked America; damaged the reputation of a Nobel prize-winner and the prestigious Massachusetts Institute t of Technology (MIT); and sparked a governmental level investigation. Daniel Kevles The Baltimore Case: A Trial of Politics, Science and Character 14 It s hard to tell the jerks from the cheats

15 RESEACH ETHICS MNS SES9100 De borah Oughto on The Players Prof. David Baltimore: Nobel Prize winner (1975). Director of the Biomedical Research Institute at MIT. Dr Thereza Imanishi-Kari: colleague and co-author. Dr. Margaret O Toole: Whistle-Blower. Walter Steward & Ned Feder: NIH Science Police US Rep. John Dingell: Congress representative. ti 15

16 RESEACH ETHICS MNS SES9100 De borah Oughto on The Plot April 1986: Joint paper published in Cell 1986: O Toole challenged data 1987: 2 inquiries (MIT and Tufts Univ.) 1988: Congress investigation started. Baltimore defended the paper and appealed to scientists to help fight this threat to scientific communication and freedom April 1991: Report published to mass media coverage: found evidence of serious misconduct, data fabrication and heavily criticised Baltimore s conduct. Dec. 1991: Baltimore resigned as President of Rockefeller University 16

17 RESEACH ETHICS MNS SES9100 De borah Oughto on Aftermath Baltimore and Imanshi-Kari cleared in 1996 (not fraud but sloppy science and bad practice) Both still working as scientists Repercussions in interference of government in research Disquiet about the role of industry funding and whether it promotes fraud and dbias What is fraud and why does it happen? 17 It s hard to tell the jerks from the cheats

18 18 RESEACH ETHICS MNS SES9100 De borah Oughto on Scientific Fraud and Misconduct 1. Fabrication and construction of data (forgery) 2. Data manipulation /falsification (selection, substitution, misleading statistical methods) 3. Deliberate distortion of results or conclusions 4. Plagiarism i of results, publications or ideas 5. Proposal applications containing incorrect information 6. Inappropriate author credit (omission or honorary author credit) 7. Negligent filing and storage of data NENT: Den nasjonale forskningsetiske komité for naturvitenskap og teknologi

19 RESEACH ETHICS MNS SES9100 (Sp ring 2009) Deborah Ough hton Number of respondents with knowledge of misconduct (NENT, 1998) Honarory authorship Copying others' work Excluding co-authors Plagarism Excluding relevant data Misleading research proposals Fabrication of data 23 Misrepresentation of others' data Fabrication of experiments

20 RESEACH ETHICS MNS SES9100 (Sp ring 2009) Deborah Ough hton Number of respondents who admitted misconduct (NENT, 1998) Honarory authorship Copying other's work Excluding co-authors Plagarism of ideas Excluding relevant data Misleading research proposals Fabrication of data Misrepresentation of others' data Fabrication of experiments

21 Trimming the data? Gregor g Mendel (1866) Milikan s Oil Drop Experiment (1916) RESEACH ETHICS MNSES9100 Deborah Oughton NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES 21

22 RESEACH ETHICS MNS SES9100 De borah Oughto on Famous Plagiarists Vijay Soman, an assistant professor at Yale, was asked to peer review a paper by Helena Wachslicht-Rodbard. He sent back a negative review, delaying publication, then turned around and submitted the same paper to another journal. 22 Guess who got the paper p to review?

23 RESEACH ETHICS MNS SES9100 Deb borah Oughto on Harming Research Subjects: Milgram s Obedience Studies Stanley Milgram: Psychologist at Yale University Experiment: Obedience to Authority 1974 Research volunteers, teachers, were told to give electric shocks to what they thought were research subjects, learners, as part of a study on the effect of punishment on learning. Even though many showed unease and asked questions, 65% followed the orders all the way, to 450 Volt 23

24 Obedience to Authority, 1974 RESEACH ETHICS MNSES9100 Deborah Oughton NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES 24

25 RESEACH ETHICS MNS SES9100 Deb borah Oughto on Milgram s Results Initial study Low prestige setting Teacher, learner together 40% 48% 65% Teacher touches learner 30% Teacher experimenter apart Non-professor in charge 22% 20% 25 Two Confederates rebel 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

26 MNSES Risk De eborah Ought ton Ethics, Science and Society Thursday/Friday What t responsibility do scientists t have for the possible negative consequences of their research? How should we best evaluate and balance the harms and benefits of potentially harmful research and technologies?

27 ETHICAL GUIDELINES MNSES Deborah Ou ughton Ethical Guidelines Guidelines for publication and review The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals (the Vancouver Convention) UiO Forskningsetikk /f i /h /f k i tikk/ General guidelines NENT ( -Forskningsetiske retningslinjer for naturvitenskapelig og teknologisk forskning 27

28 MNSES Risk De eborah Ought ton The Large Hadron Collider, CERN Fabrice Coiffrini, AFP Lawsuit L bought against CERN, claiming i the scientists t were risking creating a black hole

29 MNSES Risk De eborah Ought ton Case 3: Information Technology Consequences q welfare Benefits, Von Neuman at Los Almos Harms misuse of technology; computer or programing g error, Distribution of the benefits Free source Open access Contract research/dual-purpose Research Autonomy Privacy issues EUs datalagringsdirektiv Reduction in human choice (e.g. medical diagnosis)

30 RESEACH ETHICS MNS SES9100 Deb borah Oughto on Tuskegee Experiments Time and place: Alabama Aim: To investigate the long-term effect of untreated syphilis Studies: 400 poor, black American men (200 controls) were led to believe that they were receiving free medical treatment for syphilis from doctors The studies lasted until 1972 when Jean Heller broke the story. By then,100 of the research subjects were already dead, even though penicillin was a long established treatment 30

31 Presidential apology in 1997 RESEACH ETHICS MNSES9100 Deborah Oughton NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES 31