EG2401/A Engineering Professionalism Part 2

Lecture 4- Academic Research Ethics

Lecture 5 - Professional Engineers Code of Ethics

Lecture 6 - Conflicts of Interest

1st Semester AY 2019/20

Lecturer: Dr. Kevin S C Kuang (kevinkuang@nus.edu.sg)

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
EG2401 Engineering Professionalism Part 2

Lecture 4: Academic Research Ethics

When you discuss about academic research ethics, you

naturally think of fake papers, fake results, copycats,
‘you stole my idea!’…

let me share two stories as we jump into this topic….

The GOOD, The BAD and The UGLY
plus other FISHY scandals
Story 1 Story 2
Story 1. The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
The Good, The Bad and The Ugly - The Story

• Jenner knew of the country folklore that milkmaids never caught smallpox.
• Milkmaids inevitably caught cowpox through their close work with cows.
• Jenner speculated that a bout of cowpox produced immunity against smallpox.
• Jenner wanted to prove his theory, so he experiments on human subjects
• In 1796 he inserted pus taken from Sarah Nelmes, a milkmaid with cowpox, into
a cut made in the arm of a local boy, James Phipps. Several days later, Jenner
exposed the boy to smallpox. He was found to be immune. {FORTUNATELY!}
The Good, The Bad and The Zero?
 Free download from
http://www.edwardjennersociety.org/wp-
content/uploads/The-Jenner-Society-and.pdf
Royal Society had rejected Jenner’s paper describing
this work at the time, and he was forced to publish
his findings at his own expense in a paper
From Zero The Hero? Not so clear cut now?

“Medicine has never before produced any single

improvement of such utility. . . You have erased from
the calendar of human afflictions one of its greatest.
Yours is the comfortable reflection that mankind can
never forget that you have lived. Future nations will
know by history only that the loathsome small-pox has
existed and by you has been extirpated.”

U.S. president, Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Edward Jenner

Story 2. A Modern Tail - A Fishy Scandal
Starring….
Google Scholar Profile (type in Google Scholar: Oona Lonnstedt)
https://scholar.google.com.sg/citations?user=kbNfleUAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra

Oona Margareta Lonnstedt

Postdoctoral Fellow, Uppsala University & Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
 A Fishy Scandal- what happened?
“The widespread occurrence and accumulation
of plastic waste in the environment have
become a growing global concern over the past
decade. Although some marine organisms
have been shown to ingest plastic, few studies
have investigated the ecological effects of
plastic waste on animals. Here we show that
exposure to environmentally relevant
concentrations of microplastic polystyrene
particles (90 micrometers) inhibits hatching,
decreases growth rates, and alters feeding
preferences and innate behaviors of European
perch (Perca fluviatilis) larvae…”
The background
“Lönnstedt and Eklöv (supervisor) both hold positions at the
Department of Ecology and Genetics at Uppsala University.
The suspicions concerned the article “Environmentally
relevant concentrations of microplastic particles influence
larval fish ecology”, published in June 2016 in the journal
Science.
The research project concerned involves a study of how fish
larvae and fish fry are affected by microplastic particles…”
Published in Science –
(researchers would
dream to publish here)
Extracted from Article of Complaint of Misconduct in Research (emphasis mine)
http://www.uu.se/digitalAssets/640/c_640434-l_1-k_ufv-2016-1074-decision.pdf
A Fishy Scandal- what happened?

For fame and fortune

“The findings coincided with increasing concern about microplastics in the ocean and declining
perch numbers in the Baltic. They attracted global headlines and helped to earn Dr Lönnstedt a
$330,000 (£236,000) research grant from a Swedish funding agency. Dr Lönnstedt’s work there
has contributed to 18 papers in which she was lead author or co-author, on subjects including
fish’s predatory behaviour, ocean acidification and habitat degradation. Half of the articles were
also co-authored by Professor Chivers, Dr Ferrari or both.”

So what happened?

“On 20 June 2016, Uppsala University received a complaint of misconduct in research against
Oona Lönnstedt and Peter Eklöv. Oona Lönnstedt was last year (2017) found guilty of deliberately
fabricating the data underpinning a 2016 paper in the journal Science.”

Extracted from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/fishy-research-opens-can-worms (article by John Ross)

 A Fishy Scandal- the verdict?

The Grounds by Vice-Chancellor Eva Akesson and Board. Chief Legal Officer Per Abrahamsson
“Oona Lönnstedt and Peter Eklöv are guilty of misconduct in research, Eklöv in that he has violated
the regulations on ethical approval for animal experimentation, and Lönnstedt in that she has (1)
violated the regulations on ethical approval for animal experimentation and because the (2) experiments
were not conducted as described in the article in the scholarly journal and are therefore fabricated.

The misconduct in research was intentional. The investigation also indicates that the experiments were
not conducted during the period and to the extent stated in the research article. This means that
Lönnstedt has fabricated the results. Lönnstedt was aware of this when the article was published and
the misconduct must therefore be considered to have been committed intentionally on her part. As co-
author, senior researcher and supervisor, Eklöv had a responsibility to check that the research was
carried out as described in the research article. He failed to do this and can therefore not escape
criticism. However, his failure in this respect cannot be considered to entail a finding of responsibility for
intentional misconduct in research..”.

Extracted from Article of Complaint of Misconduct in Research (emphasis mine)

http://www.uu.se/digitalAssets/640/c_640434-l_1-k_ufv-2016-1074-decision.pdf
Story 2. A Modern Tail - A Fishy Scandal Published 8 Dec 2017
Yet Another Fishy Scandal…early this year 2018

Published 14
February 2018.
EG2401 Engineering Professionalism Part 3

Lecture 4: Academic Research Ethics

Compared to Product Research? Market

Research ? Industrial Research? Scientific
Research? What’s the difference?
The difference: Other than funding structure, end goal of research, it is paper publications, …but blurring
What is academic research?

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
— Albert Einstein
Definition: A systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order
to establish facts and reach new conclusions.

Simply put: One key aim of research is to produce new knowledge. It is not simply
compiling information from the Internet and tell people what is already known, without
adding any new insights, facts or contributions.

Why do people engage in research?: Other than our need to develop as a

civilisation, increase knowledge base, master technology for the benefits of mankind
(all the good stuff), the outcome of research can imply rise and fall of civilizations (or
nation and companies), economic gains, strategic military advantage, translate to
superior products/services (the pragmatics of life) etc.
Typical process academic research or project

Worthy Idea Investigation Publication

You start with this
The Internet as a source of ideas,
useful to trigger new ideas, to
borrow and combine others ideas,
but sometimes, people just steal
the ideas (claim as yours), no
crediting of base intellectual
property. Where do ideas come
from anyway?
WHERE GOOD IDEAS COME FROM by Steven Johnson
Typical process academic research or project
Worthy Idea
You start with this
The Internet as a source of ideas,
useful to trigger new ideas, to
borrow and combine others ideas,
but sometimes, people just steal
the ideas (claim as yours), no
crediting of base intellectual
property. Where do ideas come
from anyway?
Investigation Publication
You test out your idea
Plan out fair experiments which
could be repeated and validated
by others to confirm veracity of
scientific method used.
Investigation should be systematic
and abide by standards or codes,
where available. How to ensure
impartial, unbiased tests?
REPEATABLE, VERIFIABLE, UNBIASED EXPERIMENTS- Walter Lewin

One of my favorite
teachers of math
and physics !

To view complete
lecture, type Walter
Lewin’s Last Lecture
in YouTube
Typical process academic research or project
Worthy Idea
You start with this
The Internet as a source of ideas,
useful to trigger new ideas, to
borrow and combine others ideas,
but sometimes, people just steal
the ideas (claim as yours), no
crediting of base intellectual
property. Where do ideas come
from anyway?
Investigation
You test out your idea
Plan out fair experiments which
could be repeated and validated
by others to confirm veracity of
scientific method used.
Investigation should be systematic
and abide by standards or codes,
where available. How to ensure
impartial, unbiased tests?
Publication
You publish your results
Accurate and honest reporting.
Beware of dishonesty in reporting
such as Fabrication, Falsification
and Plagiarism. Authorship list, gift
authorship, Related issues: Peer
review process, fraudulent and
hoax papers, retraction of papers.
Why the pressure to publish?
 Paper Retraction
Watchdog
Journalist, Ivan
Oransky

For more on this: https://www.youtube.com/

Retractions, Post-Publication Peer Review, and Fraud: Scientific Publishing's Wild West watch?v=PGBrfyOCCII
So as a summary, when you make a public claim….

Worthy Idea Investigation Publication

Ideas can be stolen Unbiased and no harm done Honest reporting

At each stage, there are potential ethical issues.

Of course, if you do not formally announce your report through publications, you don’t claim
anything in the public space, in general, no problem. But if you do research, you aim to publish
(maybe you are required to make a claim what is your contribution to earn MC or degrees), you
need to be careful to do due diligence to report honestly. Once published, it’s there permanently
What constitute honest reporting?
Let’s look at what is NOT honest reporting

Types of dishonesty in academic research or project

There are many types of academic dishonesty - some are obvious, while some are
less obvious.
•Duplicate Submission;
•Cheating;
•Academic Misconduct;
•Bribery;
•Improper Computer/Calculator Use;
•Misrepresentation;
•Improper Online, TeleWeb, and Blended
•Conspiracy;
Course Use;
•Fabrication;
•Disruptive Behavior;
•Collusion;
•and last, but certainly not least, PLAGIARISM.

Credit: https://spcollege.libguides.com/c.php?g=254383&p=1695452 . For detailed explanation of each term, see website

Research Misconduct*

Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing

research, or in reporting research results.

1. Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them;

2. Misrepresentation or Falsification is manipulating research materials,

equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the
research is not accurately represented in the research record;

3. Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or

words without giving appropriate credit;

4. Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.

*A Guide to the HANDLING OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS www.oir.nih.gov

 When researchers misconduct themselves…

A trust relationship
“The scientific enterprise is built on a foundation of trust. Society trusts that scientific research results
are an honest and accurate reflection of a researcher’s work. Researchers equally trust that their
colleagues have gathered data carefully, have used appropriate analytic and statistical techniques,
have reported their results accurately, and have treated the work of other researchers with respect.
When this trust is misplaced and the professional standards of science are violated, researchers are
not just personally affronted—they feel that the base of their profession has been undermined. This
would impact the relationship between science and society.”

From Preface of to ‘On Being A Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research: 3e

The implications
- Erosion of trust of the scientific community
- Spread of falsehood (esp. sensational findings are difficult to contain and correct)
- Waste of previous resources (time, public funding, opportunity cost)
- Danger or harm to society
- Reputation of authors is damaged
 Why researchers misconduct themselves…

Possible reasons
 Pressure to deliver (over committed, to out do self and others)
 To rise about competition (when many wants something of limited amount, so very much)
 To secure promotion and tenure (career security and financial rewards)
 For fame and fortune (self-gain)
 For peer recognition (to gain prominence in the eyes of peers?)
 For power (why do we want power?)
 To be ranked highly (why do we want to be ranked highly?)
 To secure grants and fundings (to maintain job and research)
 Publish-or-perish culture (increase publications, citations, impact factor, FWCI, new metrics)

Some interesting studies on why…

1. Gino, F., 2015. Understanding ordinary unethical behavior: Why people who value morality act immorally. Current opinion in behavioral
sciences, 3, pp.107-111.
2. Tang, T.L.P. and Chiu, R.K., 2003. Income, money ethic, pay satisfaction, commitment, and unethical behavior: Is the love of money the
root of evil for Hong Kong employees?. Journal of business ethics, 46(1), pp.13-30.
3. Schweitzer, M.E., Ordóñez, L. and Douma, B., 2004. Goal setting as a motivator of unethical behavior. Academy of Management
Journal, 47(3), pp.422-432.
The 10 Greatest Cases of Fraud in University Research

https://www.onlineuniversities.com/blog/2012/02/the-10-greatest-cases-of-fraud-in-university-research/
 Remember this guy?

Paper Retraction
Watchdog Journalist,
Ivan Oransky
Before you think that research misconduct and fraudulent publication only occurs in overseas
universities or organization, here are some local examples (yes, Singapore)
Local research scandals ….and Research Integrity Watchdog
https://retractionwatch.com/category/by-country/singapore/
https://retractionwatch.com/category/by-country/singapore/
https://retractionwatch.com/category/by-country/singapore/
https://retractionwatch.com/category/by-country/singapore/
https://retractionwatch.com/category/by-country/singapore/

Self-plagiarism ?!?
a.k.a.
duplicate publication
Let us take a look at 2 important concepts

Plagiarism Self-plagiarism

This module is not about teaching you how to recognize plagiarism but to highlight this
ethical issue in academic research. Courses and information on how to identify or avoid
plagiarism will available from the CIT, NUS library or online resources. NUS provides
two plagiarism prevention services: Turnitin and iThenticate.

See http://www.cit.nus.edu.sg/plagiarism-prevention/ for more details

Concepts associated to Plagiarism
Contents of the next few slides are extracted from
http://juris.nationalparalegal.edu/intellectualproperty.aspx

(1) Working with Scholarly Information

Because information is readily available to many of us within seconds, we see
more and more that our moral and ethical boundaries about using this
information are being challenged. It is not uncommon to see names of famous
journalists and writers, such as Maureen Dowd and Fareed Zakaria, both linked
to somewhat minor cases of plagiarism, turning up in the news for borrowing
information. Even the beloved primatologist Jane Goodall’s most recent book
was pulled from the shelves because of “borrowed” material. Goodall claimed
she had not kept adequate notes, and the book was rereleased after corrections
were made. Still, given these breaches in proper attribution of information, we
know we are facing confusing times…
There is a local chapter of the Jane Goodall Institute (S)
Concepts associated to Plagiarism

(2) Intellectual Property

As good scholars and writers, we must be vigilant about understanding and
applying the rules of working with source material. This material is the
intellectual property of its creator, and intellectual property rights exist and exist
for a reason: to protect the creators of these original works. These works might
fall under but are not limited to the areas of journalism, literary writing, art,
music, photography, scientific discovery, etc. Intellectual property is protected
by law in many forms, including through trademark, copyright, and patent. This
protection ensures that the creators of such works are recognized and
financially compensated for their original and unique efforts. Thus there should
be no “borrowing” of material in academic research and writing without proper
attribution. Borrowing—or stealing —information by not attributing the work to
its original author (also called citing) is equivalent to plagiarism.
Concepts associated to Plagiarism

(3) Plagiarism
In research and writing, students are often engaged with the work of other
scholars. Students are examining or supporting an argument; asking a difficult
question and looking for multiple perspectives; crafting a literary review and
summarizing an article or a case—all of these are possibilities where a student
might be working with information that comes from another scholar. If a student
chooses to misrepresent the work of other scholars as his or her own and/or
without the correct citation or attribution, this is considered plagiarism. The
consequences of plagiarism vary across academic institutions, but most
institutions penalize the student by failure in a course. Serious violations can
result in suspension or removal from the institution.
 Concepts associated to Plagiarism
(4) Paraphrasing and Quoting
When working with scholarly information, students might find it necessary to
paraphrase the argument of a scholar or directly quote from the scholar when the
student cannot adequately paraphrase the information. In both paraphrasing ideas
and directly quoting other scholars, in order not to plagiarize information, students
must provide citations in the correct style of the discipline being represented. When
paraphrasing, students must avoid using language and sentence structure that too
closely models the work being paraphrased. The paraphrase should capture the
student’s ability to distill the most important information from the scholar and present
it in a new and interesting way, using correct documentation. When directly quoting
information, the student must use beginning and ending quotation marks around any
of the author’s language taken directly from the text. The amount of language used
in a direct quotation should be as lean as possible. The quotation should also be
properly documented. Students must be careful not to add any additional language
to the quotation and/or omit language.
Concepts associated to Plagiarism

(5) Fair Use

Though our work may be our own, scholarship and the use of scholarly material is
often a hot topic for debate, especially in academia and academic libraries.
Because copyright protects original works for a significant amount of time, there
are limitations on the amount of work we are allowed to use without copyright
permission. Fair use means working with scholarly material for criticism and
analysis where the societal benefits outweigh the rights of the copyright holder. It
often means that scholarly articles or portions of books, especially those that are
part of an academic library’s holdings, may be used for educational purposes, as
long as they are not copied in their entirety…
Concepts associated to Plagiarism

(5) Fair Use, cont’d

In most academic writing, we are examining the work of other scholars or
professionals to become part of a scholarly or professional conversation. We
look to this work to inform our own arguments, support or own ideas, or critique a
perspective in light of our own. In these cases, paraphrasing or quoting brief
passages of material would be within the boundaries of fair use. Fair use
guidelines, however, remain purposefully vague, and most violations of copyright
and fair use infringement are decided on a case-by-case basis in a court of law.
Let us take a look at 2 important concepts

Plagiarism Self-plagiarism
 “Recycling is not always good: the dangers of self-plagiarism.”
Bonnell, D. A., et al. ACS nano 6.1 (2012): 1.

Question: “If one “borrows” one's own ideas from one's own
publication(s) without attribution, is the deception still academic fraud?
Note: Plagiarism implies “taking over the ideas, methods, or written words of
another, without acknowledgment and with the intention that they be taken as the
work of the deceiver.” 1
Yes, it is, because it is an intentional attempt to deceive a reader by implying that
new information is being presented. Intentional deception is fraud; one of the two
definitions of fraud in the Oxford English Dictionary is “a person or thing intended
to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with
accomplishments or qualities”2”
1. American Association of University Professors (September/October, 1989), from
http://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/plagiarism/3.shtml.
2. Oxford Dictionaries. Defintion of Fraud. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fraud?q=fraud.
Recycling Is Not Always Good: The Dangers of Self-Plagiarism

Self-plagiarism is problematic for a number of reasons as it:

(i) overworks an already overloaded peer-review and editorial system.

(ii) generates a poor reputation for one's self and one's group.

(iii) may result in copyright infringement.

(iv) may and likely will ended up getting caught, and, in the most serious cases,
manuscripts will be retracted and featured on the https://retractionwatch.com/
ONE MORE CONCEPT useful for one of the Tutorial Project
 AUTHORSHIP & IDEA OWNERSHIP
Background
“There are no universal conventions that determine which scholarly contributions qualify
individuals as authors or that unambiguously convey authorship precedence. As a
consequence, formal attribution of authorship can obfuscate the contributions of those
involved in collaborative research and writing endeavors. Publication credit can be
misunderstood, and can be misapportioned by traditional impact measures. Because
the allocation of credit for research and discovery has such a huge impact on careers
and funding, there are increasing concerns about these issues. Contribution opacity
also hinders appropriate accountability and responsibility for the integrity of the work
being reported. For all these reasons, there is growing interest amongst researchers,
funding agencies, academic institutions, editors, publishers and others in increasing the
transparency of research contributions, and in more granular tacking of attribution and
associated credit.”

Report on the International Workshop on Contributorship and Scholarly Attribution, May 16, 2012. Harvard University and the Wellcome Trust.
http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/attribution_workshop/files/iwcsa_report_final_18sept12.pdf
 AUTHORSHIP & IDEA OWNERSHIP

In summary
In this day and age, research collaboration is the typical mode of work involving
two or more individuals and or organisations. The more individuals involved, the
more complex the attribution of authorship and idea ownership. Ownership of ideas
and subsequent crediting of authorship in publications is complicated in view of the
value and importance of intellectual property rights, (for fame and fortune, or
infamy and misfortune..!)

Authorship involves the crediting of names on a research paper involved in the

process of the scientific work carried out and the process of drafting the
publication. This aspect of academic research is fraught with ethical implications
and a clear set of guidelines is necessary to ensure research integrity.
 AUTHORSHIP & IDEA OWNERSHIP

Guidelines from the ICMJE website at www.icmje.org published

Authorship credit should be based only on

1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of
data, or analysis and interpretation of data;
2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual
content; and
3) final approval of the version to be published
4) Conditions 1, 2, and 3 must all be met. Acquisition of funding, the
collection of data, or general supervision of the research group, by
themselves, do not justify authorship.
AUTHORSHIP & IDEA OWNERSHIP

The following guidelines could apply to both authorship and contributorship:

(i) Have a clear authorship/contributorship policy.
(ii) Discuss and document individual contributor roles and provisional
authorship early on, ideally at the start of the project before work begins.
(iii) Review contributions as the work progresses, revise roles and authorship
accordingly until journal submission.
(iv) Keep a descriptive authorship contribution list.
(v) Document the reasons for author/contributor additions and deletions, and
get agreement for changes from all individuals.
(vi) Make sure all authors/contributors see and approve the final manuscript.
 AUTHORSHIP & IDEA OWNERSHIP

Creative input is thus more eligible for authorship than purely mechanical work. A technician merely
acquiring data, a senior researcher only, obtaining funding or providing supervision, a collaborator
solely providing a new reagent or samples, and other research-related but non-creative tasks do not
merit authorship on their own. These individuals and their contributions could be cited in an
acknowledgments section instead.

Based on the previously discussed criteria, solely writing or editing a manuscript, for example, does
not merit author status; involvement in the study design or data collection/analysis, approval of the
final draft of the paper, and accountability for the entire work are also required.

Nevertheless, some have argued that writing a manuscript is in fact a significant contribution,
particularly because communicating complex scientific findings frequently requires understanding
and interpreting the data. Based on this argument, the ICMJE definition of what merits authorship
attribution would have to be revised or even replaced with a list of diverse contributions.
AUTHORSHIP – SHOULD YOU USE THIS SERVICE?
https://apessay.com/order/?rid=ea55690ca8f7b080
Final Food for Thought…..

1. All of you will be doing a Final Year Project within your own discipline
2. Granted that not all will result in publication in journals, you will be
certainly be writing a thesis which you claim to be yours.
3. There will be intellectual property- who does this belong to? You, Your
Supervisor? NUS?
4. Key issues in publication in research or project:
i. Citation/References: Acknowledging prior work
ii. Data: generating, handling, reporting of data
iii. Deciding who takes the credit/responsibility of results, authorship