ETHICS AND RESEARCH

Can ethics be taught?

One school of thought :
Graduate students have values and
ethical standards firmly established
that are difficult to change
Necessary to prepare them to
recognize and deal with ethical issues
ROOT CAUSE
Most cases of scientific misconduct is
a lone scientist along with a set
experiments or observations
Supposed to be steeped in scientific
culture where truth is valued
Temptations?
Joy of new discovery
Success breeds overconfidence and
arrogance
Aspirations to security and career
advancement
BALTIMORE CASE
Case began with a result paper, written
by Imanishi-Kari, and co-authored by
Baltimore and three others
Postdoc OToole assigned to extend
the work
Could not duplicate work for almost a
year
Findings
Data reported by Imanishi-Kari
Several pages of notes on experimental
data found to be fabricated
She was strongly defended by
Baltimore
When fraud proven, Baltimore forced to
resigned as president of Rockefeller
University
AUTHORSHIP
Guidelines by International Committee
of Medical Editors :
- Each author should have participated
sufficiently in the work to take public
responsibility for the content. The
participation must include : (a)
conception or design, or analysis and
interpretation of data, or both;
(b) drafting the article or revising it for
critically important intellectual content;
and (c) final approval of the version to
be published. Participation solely in the
collection of data does not justify
authorship
CASE FOR CONSIDERATION
Scientist A, a junior member of Dept
Worked as postdoc before
Continue to work in areas allied to his
mentor
Collaborated in number of papers
before
Concerned That he is overshadowed by
mentor
Glad to submit article on his own
On receiving galley proof, surprised to see
his mentor as co-author
Learnt from secretary, that before sending
out, told to add his name on the final proof
When confronted, mentor felt that the topic
discussed was extension of previous work
done.
Work was extension done by A
independently
PEER REVIEW
Evaluation of a specialists work by
others in same field
Consequences of specialization
Used to determine which projects to be
funded, which articles to print and to
judge msiconduct
BIASES?
Specialists compete with one another,
but fight collectively for their
profession
Resists investigation anonymous
Great ideas may be rejected
Granting agencies want certainty
PEER REVIEW FOR JOURNAL
ARTICLES
Pro Valuable services. Spot mistakes
and sometimes fraud. Trial readership.
In same field, and may value the article
Con Permits self-interest, jealousy
May reject extraordinary ideas in
discussed in article
PEER REVIEW
Follow up articles easily accepted. New
ideas may be rejected
Publication lead to job and research
grant
MISUSE OF PRIVILEDGED
INFORMATION
A preview of what is to be published
Obvious misuse reject or delay
acceptance of article
Usually untraceable
Case in point
Reviewers A and B rejected an article
by C to ensure priority for an article of
their own. Action detected because C
happens to be the reviewer for their
paper.
DISHONESTY IN RESEARCH
Take several forms :
Trimming, cooking, forging, and
plagiarism
Trimming
Smoothing of irregularities to make
data look extremely accurate and
precise
Cooking
Retaining only those results that fit the
theory and discarding others
Physicist Robert A. Millikan (Nobel
Prize Winner) selected data for his
famous paper on electronic charge. It
contained an explicit statement It was
based not on selected group of data,
but all of the drops experimented upon
during 60 consecutive days .
Forging
Inventing some or all of the research
data that are reported, and even
reporting experiments to obtain the
data that were never performed
Plagiarism
Use of intellectual property of others
without proper permission or credit
Exact words or data of another used
without permission or credit is
plagiarism
Quotations of short statements by
others with proper credit permissible
Multiple Authorship
A large number of scientists involved in
inter-disciplinary research and they
make contributions to the research
permissible
Multiple Authorship
Desire for many publications less
honest
Needs publications to secure jobs
undesirable
Authors just because of position not
desirable
COLD FUSION
Fission Splitting of heavier atoms into
more atoms plus radiation
Fusion combining lighter atoms into
heavier atoms plus radiation
BACKGROUND
1926 Two German scientists, F.
Paneth and K. Peters, published paper
on transformation of hydrogen into
helium
- Spontaneous nuclear catalysis at room
temperature when hydrogen is
absorbed by finely grounded palladium
metal
Problems?
Minute amounts of helium detected
(10^-9) of cu cm
Liberation of helium dependent on
presence of hydrogen
Glass tube give no detectable helium
when heated in vacuum or in oxygen
atmosphere
Give up absorbed helium when heated
in atmosphere of hydrogen
Admission
Acknowledged helium measured due to
background from air
Published a retraction
Swedish scientist
J. Tandberg (1927)
Electrolysis of water to get hydrogen
into palladium electrode
Applied for patent for cold fusion
1932, substitute ordinary water with
heavy water after its discovery
Failed in attempt to achieve cold fusion
March 1951
Argentina President, Juan Peron, declared
one month earlier, thermonuclear
experiments carried out under conditions of
control on a technical scale in pilot plant at
secret Huemul Island Laboratory
Under direction of German-educated fusion
expert, Ronald Ritcher and four German and
Austrian associates
Dec 4, 1952, Edward R. Murlow reported that
whole project discredited
300 staff sent home, US470 m wasted
March 23, 1989 Press Conference
Two electrochemists, Stanley Pons,
Martin Fleischmann reported major
breakthrough in nuclear fusion
Cold fusion at room temperature in a
test tube
Known Facts
Experiments conducted over many
years showed that fusion occurred
under exotic conditions of high
temperature and pressure (as interior
of sun)
Claim of cold fusion virtually limitless
supply of cheap, safe, and
environmentally clean nuclear energy
Billions of dollars spent on fusion
under extremely high temperatures
Patent?
In USA then, first to discover assigned
patent rights
Simplicity
Heavy water, electrodes (palladium)
and electrolyte
Electrolyte used - lithium deuteroxide
During electrolysis, large amount of
deuterium driven to palladium
electrode
Deuterium atoms close enough for
fusion to take place
Claims?
One watt of power from nuclear
reactions 10^12 neutrons per sec
emitted
Researchers exposed to excessive
nuclear radiation
Researchers in good health and no
sign of exposure to lethal dose of
radiation
Enormous discrepancy between claims
of heat production and commensurate
levels of fusion products (by far the
most sensitive signature of fusion)
Inconsistency
Brigham Young University claimed cold
fusion, based on extremely small yield
of measured neutrons.
Energy yield 10^12 times smaller than
claimed by Utah
Third Reason
Not possible based on current nuclear
theory supported by large body of
experimental data
Secrecy?
Physics Department at Utah not
consulted
Competition as to be first to discover
Patent?
If upheld each party (University,
department, and staff) 1/3 of royalty
received (billions)
Prestige
New research center
Economic development for Utah
March 24
State of Utah US$1.5 m
Donor US$0.5 m (later discovered
from University fund)
National Cold Fusion Center set up
Sept 26, NCFI tests did not confirm
previous data
Nov 7, 1990
A year later, committee of 4 outside
experts concluded that institutes work
could not establish existence of cold
fusion several tens of million of
dollars spent
Pons resigned from tenure post,
president of Utah University resigned
and NCFI closed after 2 years of
operation
LESSONS
Against known scientific theories and
experimental results
Premature publication no refereeing
No detailed publication of procedure or
data obtained
Replication the higher the impact the
greater that more effort put in to
demonstrate results
Isolation working in secrecy
Control of information
Discovery by outsider new emerging
area may be possible, but not likely in
established area
Revenue
Patent