Free Ebook Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment, by Tony Mayer
Use the innovative innovation that human develops today to find guide Promoting Research Integrity In A Global Environment, By Tony Mayer easily. However first, we will certainly ask you, how much do you enjoy to review a book Promoting Research Integrity In A Global Environment, By Tony Mayer Does it consistently till finish? For what does that book review? Well, if you really like reading, aim to review the Promoting Research Integrity In A Global Environment, By Tony Mayer as one of your reading compilation. If you only read the book based on requirement at the time and unfinished, you should try to such as reading Promoting Research Integrity In A Global Environment, By Tony Mayer first.
Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment, by Tony Mayer
Free Ebook Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment, by Tony Mayer
Promoting Research Integrity In A Global Environment, By Tony Mayer. Haggling with reading behavior is no need. Reading Promoting Research Integrity In A Global Environment, By Tony Mayer is not sort of something offered that you can take or otherwise. It is a point that will alter your life to life much better. It is the important things that will offer you lots of points all over the world and also this cosmos, in the real world and below after. As just what will be made by this Promoting Research Integrity In A Global Environment, By Tony Mayer, how can you negotiate with the important things that has many advantages for you?
The reason of why you could receive and also get this Promoting Research Integrity In A Global Environment, By Tony Mayer sooner is that this is the book in soft file form. You could review guides Promoting Research Integrity In A Global Environment, By Tony Mayer anywhere you desire also you remain in the bus, office, house, and various other areas. But, you may not have to relocate or bring guide Promoting Research Integrity In A Global Environment, By Tony Mayer print any place you go. So, you won't have bigger bag to bring. This is why your option making far better principle of reading Promoting Research Integrity In A Global Environment, By Tony Mayer is truly valuable from this case.
Knowing the method ways to get this book Promoting Research Integrity In A Global Environment, By Tony Mayer is also important. You have been in best website to begin getting this info. Get the Promoting Research Integrity In A Global Environment, By Tony Mayer link that we provide here and also go to the link. You can buy guide Promoting Research Integrity In A Global Environment, By Tony Mayer or get it when feasible. You could quickly download this Promoting Research Integrity In A Global Environment, By Tony Mayer after obtaining bargain. So, when you need the book rapidly, you could straight receive it. It's so very easy and so fats, right? You need to choose to this way.
Merely connect your device computer system or gizmo to the internet linking. Get the modern-day innovation to make your downloading Promoting Research Integrity In A Global Environment, By Tony Mayer finished. Even you don't intend to review, you could straight shut guide soft data and also open Promoting Research Integrity In A Global Environment, By Tony Mayer it later. You could additionally quickly get the book anywhere, because Promoting Research Integrity In A Global Environment, By Tony Mayer it is in your gadget. Or when being in the workplace, this Promoting Research Integrity In A Global Environment, By Tony Mayer is additionally advised to review in your computer device.
Globalisation has become a rewarding but challenging fact of life for scientific and scholarly researchers. Intellectually, they work with shared understandings of their areas of research and research methods. Professionally, responsibility and best practices are subject to many different rules and standards that vary across disciplines, countries, and cultures. They know how to measure and study the objects of their research but are often less sure of what constitutes the responsible practice of research or research integrity. The World Conferences on Research Integrity provide a forum for an international group of researchers, research administrators from funding agencies and similar bodies, research organisations performing research, universities and policy makers to discuss and make recommendations on ways to improve, harmonise, publicise, and make operationally effective international policies for the responsible conduct of research. The second such conference, held in Singapore in July 2010, focused on challenges and responses. Where is integrity in research today most significantly challenged and what is being done to address these challenges? This volume brings together a selection of presentations and key guidelines and statements emerging from the Conference.
- Sales Rank: #3312937 in Books
- Published on: 2012-01-25
- Original language: English
- Number of items: 1
- Dimensions: 9.00" h x 1.30" w x 6.10" l, 1.70 pounds
- Binding: Hardcover
- 440 pages
Review
"The globalisation of research means that we need to have common standards throughout the World so that research practitioners, users and the general public, can have trust in the integrity of research wherever it is undertaken. The World Conferences have focused our attention not only on the high-profile cases of misconduct but also on the responsible conduct of research. The Second World Conference led to the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity which sets out the principles and responsibilities of researchers in all disciplines and from around the World. These Proceedings provide a record of the broad and yet detailed discussions that took place in July 2010 and can provide a benchmark and reference point for the future."-- --Professor Bertil Andersson, President of Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
From the Inside Flap
Globalisation has become a rewarding but challenging fact of life for scientific and scholarly researchers. Intellectually, they work with shared understandings of their areas of research and research methods. Professionally, responsibility and best practices are subject to many different rules and standards that vary across disciplines, countries, and cultures. They know how to measure and study the objects of their research but are often less sure of what constitutes the responsible practice of research or research integrity.
The World Conferences on Research Integrity provide a forum for an international group of researchers, research administrators from funding agencies and similar bodies, research organisations performing research, universities and policy makers to discuss and make recommendations on ways to improve, harmonise, publicise, and make operationally effective international policies for the responsible conduct of research. The second such conference, held in Singapore in July 2010, focused on challenges and responses. Where is integrity in research today most significantly challenged and what is being done to address these challenges? This volume brings together a selection of presentations and key guidelines and statements emerging from the Conference.
Most helpful customer reviews
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful.
Honest Essays on Dishonest Research I
By John Richard Schrock
Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment edited by Tony Mayer and Nicholas Steneck; World Scientific, hardcover, 395 pages, © 2012.
This is a conference proceedings record for the 2nd World Congress on Research Integrity held in Singapore in 2010 and includes the "Singapore Statement on Research Integrity." The theme for this congress was "Leadership Challenges and Responses." It is broken into eight sections that include a total of 59 essays. Below is a 1-2 sentence synopsis of the 3-5 page chapters, and a brief paragraph on the longer chapters (with my perspective).
Section I is a set of short formal "welcomes" more for protocol than substantive discussion.
In (i) "Opening Address by the Minister for Education and Second Minister for Defence," Ng Eng Hen opens the conference and provides a few interesting statistics including the fact that 97% of Singapore high school seniors take math and 86% take a science at the conclusion of a heavy math/science K-12 education. Over half of Singapore university students are also enrolled in STEM fields, in contrast to 25% or less in OECD nations. Singapore's investment in R&D is 3% (which is under that of France and South Korea).
(ii) "Welcome by the President of Nanyang Technological University" by Su Guaning introduces the formulation of the "Singapore Statement" for 1) providing a framework for promoting research integrity and responding to misconduct, 2) providing global codes of conduct and best practices, 3)coordinating principles for training students and researchers, and 4) defining best practices for editors and publishers.
(iii) "Welcome by the President of A*STAR" by Lim Chuan Poh. A*STAR is the Singaporean national research Agency for Science, Technology and Research that coordinates among the three Singaporean universities. Poh stresses: 1) the increasing collaboration in research, the pressure to "publish or perish," the need for special treatment of research with human subjects, and 4) the just use of public monies. This is also the first mention that there are differing definitions for misconduct and plagiarism in different cultures.
(iv) "Welcome by the Vice President for Research Strategy, National University of Singapore" by Seeram Ramakrishna is a short statement that estimates that the world is now spending more than a trillion dollars a year on R&D with about one-third coming from public funds. He stresses honor and trust.
(v) "Welcome by the President of Singapore Management University" by Howard Hunter mentions that the air quality standards for lab rats exceeds that for humans--and a few other anecdotes.
Section II addresses "Research Integrity Structures."
(1) "Developing Research Integrity Structures: Nationally and Internationally" by Christine C. Boesz missed the editor's pen with many typos. She focuses on the Global Science Forum report by the OECD. She also notes some aspects of dealing with misconduct must lie with governments, not the scientific community, when it involves matters of public safety and honest use of public funds. Structures must also address confidentially for both the whistleblower and the accused.
(2) "Stakeholder Leadership in Addressing Research Integrity Issues" by Howard Alper emphasizes the role of professional societies to educate their members in integrity, and that judicial proceedings rarely are used unless there is harm to humans, etc.
(3) "Research Integrity Challenges--A Singapore Perspective" by Lee Eng Hin notes that Singapore has been rated the 3rd least corrupt country in the world. A*STAR has developed a "Code of Best Research Practices" that is given to all new science recruits. In the extramural arena, grants are inspected by several tiers of reviewers to ensure no conflict of interest occurs, etc. More difficult problems occur in transnational and industry collaboration.
(4) "European Science Foundation and Research Integrity" by Ian Halliday provides the background to the Member Organization (MO) Forum of the European Science Foundation that has discussed integrity. A range of principles of scientific integrity are laid out and several tables make comparisons among the European countries as to whether the jurisdiction lies the professional bodies, national oversight, of local with national oversight. In addition the roles of each of these modalities is charted. He notes that "the temptation of promise instantaneous medical cures and/or immediate industrial breakthroughs is sometimes irresistible" and "This is just as big a threat to the credibility of the science community as any fraud." He stresses the ultimate role of "trust."
(5) "France: How to Improve a Decentralized, Ambiguous National System" by Jean-Pierre Alix presents a fairly gloomy picture of inaction; a survey in 2009 suggested that infractions were few and while there was good will to address integrity, there was hesitancy to talk publicly about fraud, etc. The conclusion was to "Give time to convince and avoid forced decisions," noting that a rapidly adopted bad system will not work.
(6) "Research Integrity in the Canadian Context" by Ronald Heslegrave describes the efforts of the three major national councils working as the "Tri-Council" to draft a statement on integrity, completed in 2006. In 2009 a new organization commissioned a report that recommended "strategic strengthening" but the system still has gaps. Another expert panel report was issued and released in October of 2010.
(7) "Research Integrity in New Zealand" by Sylvia Rumball and John O'Neill describes the lack of a comprehensive approach but the involvement of many specific agreements from the usual animal welfare constraints to tribal arrangements. Noting that there are potentially three levels for attentions--personal, collective and institutional--New Zealand addresses integrity as a personal issue. Promotes transparency, education of staff, and consistency in decision-making.
(8) "Challenges Encountered by the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences When Introducing Concepts for Promoting Scientific Integrity" by Emilio Bossi explains the nature of the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences. Bossi selects two issues: underestimation of scientific misconduct, and "skepticism and mistrust toward academic self-control" by the public. Significant statements include the assertion that research institutions are reluctant to declare discovered cases of misconduct, the need for external experts to be involved in misconduct investigations, and the need to take the initiative and not wait for mandates from outside.
(9) "The Integrity of Researchers in Japan: Will Enforcement Replace Responsibility?" by Tohru Masui reports a survey where less than half of laboratories were securing informed consent for use of leftover clinical samples. While earlier reports suggested ethics panels to review proposals, specific ethics guidelines were only established in 2000 for genomic, epidemiological and clinical research. On another front, legislation that protected data was amended allowing exemption for scientific research. However, Masui points out that there is a built-in tension between guidelines that demand "obedience and rigidity" scientific inquiry that thrives on "freedom, flexibility and responsibility" and cautions against first going to lawyers for guidance, rather laying the responsibility on scientists to plan and develop what they want to achieve before allowing legal frameworks to confine limits without context.
(10) "National, Institutional and International Approaches to Research Integrity: An Australian Perspective" by Ren Yi. The Australian Code for the responsible Conduct of Research 2007 is described, followed by the Australian Research Integrity Committee (ARIC) formed in 2010. Much relies on individual research institutions. Yi breaks this down into administrative management, research management and financial management. Awareness of university policy and the National Code of Conduct for Responsible Research requires continual education effort as students (and researchers) cycle through. However, no international agencies or government agencies have responsibility toward international research cooperation.
(11) "Finland: How to Revise National Research Integrity Guidelines in the Changing International Landscape?" by Eero Vuorio provides slightly more background on the absence of a Finnish term for "integrity" and the use of "ethics" instead, which is confusing since ethical boards already judge various aspects of human and animal use, etc. and "integrity" involves a wider range of "good scientific practice." [This linguistic and cultural difference is important and wider ranging, but other examples are missing from the rest of the book.] Violations are divided into misconduct and fraud. The guidelines of the Finnish Advisory Board are described, ranging from describing good practice to procedures for handling violations. Doctoral programs now contain lectures on integrity and the number of cases of misconduct involving foreign scientists "appears to be increasing." Revisions are being considered and include "...falsifications in self-drafted curricula vitae and publication lists," etc.
(12) "Acting After Learning in Europe" by Kirk G. De Hen suggests that countries that deny the problem of integrity and threats against science are either refusing to detect the problem or know about cases and refuse to acknowledge them. We have these problems because researchers are human, but that also means that we can learn to do it right. Some cases of complaints against researchers are made by others "...not for the sake of good research in general, but because they felt harm was done to their own work or...reputation." De Hen describes the aims of ENRIO, the European Network of Research Integrity Offices formed in 2007.
(13) "Views on Research Integrity in the Commonwealth of Independent States" by Boris Yudin addresses the perspective in the CIS that includes the former Soviet states and mainly communicate in Russian. Yudin describes a survey by Professor Apressyan that asked many questions about research standards and integrity of scientists across the CIS countries. All respondents were "rather suspicious" about allowing involvement of "authorities outside of the research community in making policies and decisions on research conduct/misconduct." [This is reasonable considering their history with the Lysenko affair, etc.] Yudin also relates contemporary "fudged research results." He distinguishes between "first order" responsibilities to the scientific community and "second order responsibilities" to the state and society. He concludes that "...any efforts to cope for research integrity apart from the scientific community would be counterproductive."
Section III addresses Research Misconduct.
(14) "The Black, the White and the Grey Areas: Toward an International and Interdisciplinary Definition of Scientific Misconduct" by Daniele Fanelli almost touches on a critical concept when she asks: "...if the laws of nature do not change across nations or fields of research, why should the criteria to investigate them change?" but then drifts off into the discussions that confound pure research criteria with social institutions, a problem that pervades every discussion in this book. Fanelli picks up the misconduct from the early 1980s and relates various definitions of "fabrication, falsification, plagiarism" or FFP, an acronym to be used across other chapters as well. This is contrasted with "questionable research practices" or QRP. Fanelli summarizes various NAS, IoM, and NAE efforts, and gives comparisons with efforts in Norway, Finland, Denmark, etc. A discussion of narrow FFP as "undeniably black" contrasts with unethical behaviors not confined to science as "white" unethical behavior. Two tables comparing details of various countries' definitions are so small as to be unreadable, which is the fault of the editor/publisher. This is crucial since she proposes a unified worldwide definition based on the commonalities found in these tables. Her reference section is a fairly complete list of major codes and standards.
(15) Keynote Address: "Promoting Integrity in Research" by David L. Vaux breaks integrity into integrity of the literature and of the scientists. He distinguishes errors from randomness, incompetence, and deliberate misconduct. He briefly mentions plagiarism, honorary authorship, ghost authorship, and excluded authors. Codes alone are insufficient to enforce compliance; that usually depends on what he calls the "inspection/police force model, and the whistle-blower/fire alarm model." He lays responsibility on individual researchers, institutions, journals, funding bodies, and professional academies.
(16) "Does Peer Review Work as a Self-Policing Mechanism in Preventing Misconduct: A Case Study of a Serial Plagiarist" by Ben R. Martin provides a most interesting if not breathtaking case of a person who has continually plagiarized and misrepresented his record across decades, moving around the world and nearly achieving high positions. If self-policing worked, then there would have been many instances where his career would have been ended---it was not. Martin notes that "The task of investigating and of `punishing' comes at a cost. Editors, universities and others must be prepared to incur that `cost' if the scourge of plagiarism and other research misconduct is to be kept at bay."
(17) "Scientific Falsifications in and out of Science" by Edward P. Kruglyakov is almost out-of-place insofar as it is more about pseudoscience (astrology, anti-gravitation, micro leptons, etc.) than it is about mainline science. [However, to the extent they result in falsification in science journals, they are a problem in a country that saw politics mix with science during Lysenko.] He lists "strange patents" (that could easily be matched by the U.S.) as well as "shameless advertising of [quack] medicine" and "strange [pseudoscience] conferences" sponsored by universities and governmental bodies. Fortunately, there is some pushback from a commission of the Russian Academy of Science.
(18) "The Need for Greater Attention Regarding Research Integrity in Mexico" by Jose A. Cuellar provides data on Mexico's relatively minor participation in research and lack of support for research. He details several a cases of unsubstantiated research (a virus as the cause of multiple sclerosis) and stealing of credit for a discovery (treating cysticercosis). This threatens the integrity of Mexican research and has focused some actions toward investigating such cases.
Section IV addresses Codes of Conduct
(19) "A Framework for Examining Codes of Conduct on Research Integrity" by Melissa S. Anderson and Marta A. Shaw proposes ten "dimensions of codes" as a framework for characterizing existing codes." A contrast is drawn between formal written codes and informal expectations or customs. "Aspirational" codes appeal to ideal behavior but are not usable for regulation and enforcement as are "regulatory" codes. "Normative" codes are in-between but enforced only by expulsion from a professional group. However, they caution that codes can be used for public relations only and have little effect on actual behavior, as in the Enron case. The impetus for adopting a code may vary from internal commitments to curbing embarrassing violations to symbolism for external agents. Codes generally target specific actors and are based on specific professional traditions or moral philosophies and vary widely in scope and format. To be enforceable, their language is usually prescriptive, and their quality varies in clarity and effectiveness. The authors see three challenges to using codes of conduct: inadequacy and ineffectiveness, the difficulties posed by international collaboration, and "dead codes" that are presently ignored or not taught to the next generation. A sobering conclusion is that "Codes will not make anyone behave well" but do "...serve an important role in helping people to make good behavioural decisions...."
(20) "Dilemmas for Ethical Guidelines for the Sciences" by Matthais Kaiser proposes four dilemmas facing guidelines of conduct. The first is the "identity" of the authoring community, which can vary from the international community of folks studying a specific narrow discipline to institutions where a code would apply just to the local institution but all fields of research. He notes the diminishing role of academies in Europe. The second dilemma is "goals" and he contrasts codes that are established to validate the good practice of the majority against the few "bad eggs" versus codes that try to help clarify for everyone the complex pressures, confusion, and conflicts-of-interest in an enterprise that is becoming more entangled in commercialization, for instance. The third dilemma is the audience or target community which not only includes the researchers who are supposed to behave well, but "...it is the role of guidelines to assure society that science is still on the right track and that there is harmony between social values and scientific values." The fourth dilemma is between the "freedom of science" that is universal and pure-in-heart [my term], and "...the tender relation between legal measures and the internal ethics of science" which this author characterizes as a difference between "hard law" and "soft law" [which I consider to be one of the best statements of this book, and one of its stronger chapters].
(21) "Levels of Responsibility" by John Sulston provides a brief conversation of who is responsible. Of course the individual person has to temper their ambition with a sense of justice to others in a climate of peer approval. But, "...along with personal integrity goes collective integrity." He suggests actively discouraging scientists from publishing so many papers because there are individuals with their name on more papers than they could even read.
He rightfully chastises "...search, promotion, funding and award committees" [and I would add administrators] who merely count publications on resumes without understanding the quality or value of those publications. He likewise brings up the corporate scientists tension with shareholders and the government's suppression of science it doesn't like, noting the Bush administration suppression of communication about climate change data. He concludes that codes aimed at the "bottom" tier of researchers are not enough to prevent misconduct from above.
(22) "The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity" by Pieter J.D. Drenth focuses on this European code of the European Science Foundation (that together with the U.S. Office on Research Integrity sponsored the First World Conference in Lisbon in 2007). In 2008, ESF established a Member Forum on Research Integrity that in turn formed four working groups on: (1) raising awareness and sharing information, (2) "Code of Conduct" chaired by Drenth, (3) setting up national structures, and (4) research on science integrity. The resulting "European Code..." in turn laid down the main points of: principles of integrity, misconduct, good practices, and international collaboration. Research misconduct was divided into fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, failure to meet clear ethical and legal requirements, and minor misdemeanors, all of which merited different responses. Drenth concludes with "annotations" indicating the applications and limitations of this European Code.
(23) "A Report from the European Forum for Good Clinical Practice" by Frank Wells discusses the European Forum for Good Clinical Practice and definitions of fraud and misconduct and summarizes the position of a subgroup that addressed this problem, which in many ways repeat aspects of other reports in this volume. They do emphasize that "the role of the statistician in confirming or denying a suspicion that data have been fabricated or falsified is under-appreciated." They also discuss the establishment of Rapid Response Teams of experienced investigators who can respond to whistleblower alerts in a timely manner.
(24) "Lessons from 17 Years With National Guidelines for Research Ethics in Norway" by Ragnvald Kalleberg. The Norwegian Guidelines consist of 46 guidelines published by three committees: cover natural science and technology, medical research, and social sciences and humanities. Each of these was developed by a committee of 10 researchers and 2 lay persons. They include norms for freedom of research, good research practice, relationship to financing bodies, and communication of scientific knowledge to society outside the field. They apply to both institutions and individuals, are widely disseminated and recognized by researchers, and are the criteria consulted in regulatory cases.
(25) "Society for Scientific Values: A Movement to Promote Ethics in the Conduct of Science" by Ashima Anand. Several speakers from developing countries have mentioned the onslaught of "publish or perish" and this is the opening line of this description of the situation in India. In response to the lack of concern from the "scientific bureaucracy," the "Society for Scientific Values" (SSV) was established in 1986 with an elite membership of high integrity researchers (now over 400) who are nominated into the field by existing members and who (1) only author papers where they are "actively involved," (2) have never made false claims or plagiarized, etc. and (3) will support the decisions of the SSV. Anand indicates that the SSV has taken on the role of "court of last resort" and in some cases the SSV, although it lacks legal power, has had to apply pressure for several years to get plagiarists removed from institutions. There is an absence of national codes and the Society works to educate young researchers, "keeping in view that `ethics' cannot be taught in a formal way but must be cultured and nurtured through experience, analysis, introspection, and a sense of responsibility...."
(26) "How Many Codes of Conduct Do We Need? The Chinese Experience" by Ping Sun explains why this author "...suggests that a small number of professional or disciplinary codes of conduct is better than a large number of institutional ones." He asks if it is necessary for every institution to develop their own code; when there are many, which are better; if they are different, which is a person supposed to follow; and if there are commonalities, just how many codes are really needed. He cites several recent national codes in China. With rapid university and research development, it is more efficient for learned societies to establish codes than for individual institutions to reinvent the wheel. He asks that codes be "authentic" which is to say, well-defined and consistent, based on actual practice, and ultimately backed up by research. He also asks who has the authority, jurisdiction or responsibility. He notes that some China institutional codes lack details of implementation and therefore "...are mainly of encouragement and discouragement nature." He makes the only reference in this book to the Hippocratic Oath as an international code of conduct since research in science is universal, and suggests a good code is one to two pages in length.
(27) "The Past, Present and Future of One University's Code of Research Ethics in New Zealand" by John O'Neill and Sylvia Rumball. They begin by showing the growth in research centres at Massey University where one-third of its income is from research. With a growing proportion are general rather than academic staff, under capped funding, the future focus will be "commercial" science and external funding which will shift the researchers' efforts to "outputs" with increased concern with conflict of interest, intellectual property rights, etc. This shift from public good to private "good" will mix science with the "integrity of corporate governance." In some aspects, to me this was the most chilling two page essay in the book...slightly Orwellian in its outlook.
(28) "The Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research---Challenges and Responses" by Timothy Dyke. There are three national standards, the national code in this title, a code on human research and a code on animal research. Dyke address the general code adopted in 2007. Part A of the Code outlines responsibilities and guidelines for everything from data management to authorship and peer review. Parts B and C address how to handle allegations and specifies external and independent processes. He notes some challenges faced since 2007 and the formation of a committee to "consider cases in which persons have concerns over the processes...."
Section V addresses Institutional and National Approaches to Fostering Responsible Research
(29) "Why, What, and How We Should be Teaching About Research Integrity" by Michael Kalichman is three times longer than most other chapters. He provides a brief history of various requirements in NIH, PHS, and other federal agencies. A brief summary of definitions notes the spectrum between the enforceable narrow "fabrication, falsification and plagiarism" and more general "intentional, serious misrepresentations that corrupt the research process or record." A good observation is that focusing on research misconduct suggests to students and researchers that they either do not know what is wrong, or that they do know right from wrong and decide to do wrong anyway, neither being "...a good place to start for the education of adults." He rightly observes that if science misconduct was widespread, then we would not be seeing the advances that we have seen in science and technology. But any misconduct at all is too much. Kalichman provides a table of failures classified by responsibility and consequences as well as a table of goals for teaching research ethics. He also notes that a poorly taught research integrity course might be worse than none at all. Additional tables on where research ethics should be taught and the approaches from case studies to video are pedestrian.
(30) "Establishing and Institutional Culture of Research Integrity: Key Challenges & Successful Solutions" by Philip J. Langlais lists the reasons it is difficult to obtain "buy in" for teaching of RCR (Responsible Conduct of Research). A survey of faculty and students found "far more faculty than students judged [the same] RCR training as adequate." He also lists various ways RCR can be incorporated into the curriculum without making it a separate course.
(31) "A Curriculum for RCR Training in Germany" by Gerlinde Sponholz. In Germany, education in GSP (Good Scientific Practice) is voluntary. The author recommends a few introductory lessons early in their studies and a course of no less than 14 hours when they begin their doctorate work, notes the shortage of teachers trained in research ethics, and the gap between the rules and the actual practice of science.
(32) "Teaching and Training Research Ethics" by Ragnvald Kalleberg speaks to practicalities of teaching this subject. He recommends that the teaching be by scientists in the field (not philosophers, etc.) and focus on what the graduate "...students are doing in their own research." Ethics is not just a matter of individuals, but also of institutional climate and procedures. His survey "...data showed that less than 5% of the researchers had learnt about existing, relevant research ethical guidelines from a thesis supervisor."
(33) "Developing Policies for RCR Training in Brazilian Graduate Programs: Current Challenges" by Sonia M. R. Vasconcelos starts by outlining Brazil's position in South American science where, "in 2008, more than 50& of articles originating from Latin America and published in journals indexed in the Thomson Reuters database were from Brazil." This and other presentations highlight that the Western publish-or-perish criteria have infected and corrupted the developing countries' science awards systems. I greatly appreciated the discussion of the bias to English publication and the handicaps to Brazilian researchers who work in other languages [phenomenon I have called "language imperialism" although that charged epithet never appears in this volume]. Here also is a brief discussion that the understanding of plagiarism is not uniform across cultures and there is pushback to the "Anglophone notions of plagiarism, which are those that define current editorial policies." Brazilian researchers view plagiarism of data and ideas more than plagiarism of words and one Turkish researcher noted: "Borrowing sentences in the part of a paper that simply helps to better introduce the problem should not be seen as plagiarism...." Discussion of research integrity has only begun in this rapidly developing country.
...to continue this review, read the second part on Honest Essays on Dishonest Research II
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful.
Honest Essays on Dishonest Research II
By Lois Schrock
Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment edited by Tony Mayer and Nicholas Steneck; World Scientific, hardcover, 395 pages, © 2012.
...review continued
(33) “Developing Policies for RCR Training in Brazilian Graduate Programs: Current Challenges” by Sonia M. R. Vasconcelos starts by outlining Brazil’s position in South American science where, “in 2008, more than 50& of articles originating from Latin America and published in journals indexed in the Thomson Reuters database were from Brazil.” This and other presentations highlight that the Western publish-or-perish criteria have infected and corrupted the developing countries’ science awards systems. I greatly appreciated the discussion of the bias to English publication and the handicaps to Brazilian researchers who work in other languages [phenomenon I have called “language imperialism” although that charged epithet never appears in this volume]. Here also is a brief discussion that the understanding of plagiarism is not uniform across cultures and there is pushback to the “Anglophone notions of plagiarism, which are those that define current editorial policies.” Brazilian researchers view plagiarism of data and ideas more than plagiarism of words and one Turkish researcher noted: “Borrowing sentences in the part of a paper that simply helps to better introduce the problem should not be seen as plagiarism....” Discussion of research integrity has only begun in this rapidly developing country.
Section VI discusses Individual Approaches to Fostering Integrity in Research
(34) “Online RCR Training and the Use of Case Study Videos” by Daniel R. Vasgird quotes Livingstone in asserting that moral failure is less a weakness of character and “more often it is due to an inadequate ideal.” Visgird asserts that “research…generally flourishes when the public that supports it and ultimately makes use of its products has high regard for its ways and means.” His formula for RCR (Responsible Conduct of Research) education is to use online tutorials “…as a tandem resource to supplement real-time learning.” He assigns their viewing a week ahead of discussion times “…so that we can jump into the core of the matter at hand.” Online tutorials are described as having five parts: “introduction, case study section, foundation text, resources and conclusion.” He uses quotations and scenarios to set up an “empathic response.” He advocates the use of 3 minute or less “trigger videos” to leave open-ended questions when class time is short.
(35) “Use of Case Studies in Training Students and Practitioners in Responsible Research Practice” by Bruce H. J. McKellar provides a brief description of the use of case studies in a brief 2-4 hour course involving examples of unethical research practices (assigned ahead-of-time, preliminary discussion and posing of dilemma scenarios.
(36) “Reflexives® Integrated Training Program for PhD Students and Their Supervisors: Quality, Integrity and Responsible Conduct of Research” by Marie-Claude Roland describes the Reflexives® Community of Practice 5-day training program made of 4 different types of sessions: project building, science communication, development of competencies, and reflective practice. This is followed by 2-day workshops in the following year. These five pages contain a record number of educationist terms: critical thinking, vision, problem-solving, role-playing, objectives, quality criteria, portfolio, ownership, facilitate, reflective practice, formulate competencies, etc. which appeared less than helpful; but it may impress. It reads like an advertisement. Roland appears to have been accidently left off of the address list of contributors.
(37) “How to Teach Research Integrity Without the Notion: Attempts in Japan” by Tetsuji Iseda explains the difficulty of translating “research ethics” into Japanese, with a term for “fair treatment in research” coming closest. This can reduce the concept to “avoidance of FFP (fabrication, falsification and plagiarism)…” which the author rightly considers “…an impoverished view of ethics…” that does not promote ethical conduct and also erodes public trust in science. He focuses instead on the term “‘hokori’ which means pride or ‘self-esteem’ in Japanese” in order to provide the context for motivation to higher standards. This is an excellent but brief example of the “burden on a student if she is from a culture without the notion of ‘integrity’.”
(38) “Creating the CITI-Japan Program for Web-Based Training: Where Ethics, Law and Science Experts Meet” by Iekuni Ichikawa and Masaru Motojima describes Japan’s modification of the U.S. CITI (Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative). They note the heavier load on faculty (Japan has half the medical schools of the U.S. but one-fifth the faculty). They do bring in a very interesting graph contrasting cultures based on the split in giving for the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake relief, with Japan relying dramatically on government monetary aid while the U.S. relies heavily on private funds; this reflects a different cultural mindset toward responsibility and a “lack of initiative in the Japanese private sector….” Therefore the Science Council of Japan “recommends not to directly apply Euro-American rules to Japanese researchers as they do not have autonomy comparable to Euro-American researchers….” The Japanese governmental mandate in 2008 that all researchers working on human subjects take ethics education resulted in a “let-the-government-instruct-us-and-we-will-follow-it” attitude. In face of this, they imported and “Japanified” the CITI modules with input from the field to adjust for differences in language and culture, and included the authors of the U.S. modules in this adaptation. The CITI Japan platform was then dispersed to institutions by subscription. Despite being an impersonal online system, this is one of the more revealing chapters concerning problems in cross-cultural transfer.
(39) “Promoting Best Practices for Scientists and Postdoctoral Fellows” by Makoto Asashima uses a brief paragraph to and five figures to summarize the guide book by the Science Ethical Committee, older lab note books that recorded work in ink, the Code of Conduct of principles and implementation and enforcement procedures in institutions.
(40) “Statens Serum Institute’s Course on Good Scientific Practice: Why? How? What? Does it Work? What is Needed?” by Nils Axelsen describes the Danish national guidelines n good scientific practice (GSP) as “not well understood or ignored” and describes his efforts to change this at his institute using 5-6 seminar sessions of 3 hours each over 14 days. These were mandatory for PhD and post-doc students within their first one-and-a-half years. Incorporating discussion of cases of dishonesty, etc. the sessions “…have been a major eye-opener…” and their mentors “…are now eager to participate(!).”@
(41) “Responsible Conduct of Research Workshops at the Australian National University” by Simon Bain provides a brief summary of their “two intensive one hour sessions” involving case studies and student interaction to develop a bottom up approach.
(42) “Scientific Integrity: The Perspective from Imperial College London” by Mary Ritter and Stephen Webster. This approach provides a course-for-credit. The readings-and-discussion format had no shortage of resources. Case studies were useful but the most effective discussions centered around the day-to-day minor dilemmas in the students’ own experiences rather than sensational national debacles.
(43) “Workshop #3 Report: International Responsible Conduct of Research Education” by Nicholas H. Steneck, Mike Kalichman, and Nils Axelson summarizes the workshop organized in conjunction with this World Conference and with U.S. NSF support. They indicate that the need for RCR (Responsible Conduct of Research) “…is not widely recognized internationally.” This chapter lays out a summary of what major topics should be included in RCR education, and promotes future training of RCR trainers and recruitment of “…leaders to champion RCR education.”
Section VII targets Integrity Issues for Authors and Editors
(44) “Challenges for Editors as Guardians of the Research Record” by Sabine Kleinert advocates training of editors and briefly delineates the function of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
(45) “Promoting Integrity in Research Reporting: Developing Universal Standards and Promoting Best Practice Among Journals” by Elizabeth Wager also briefly discusses some editorial misconduct and promotes COPE (with additional background on this organization), the Council of Science Editors, and the World Association of Medical Editors. COPE does not adjudicate but does have an online database of 300+ cases.
(46) “The EQUATOR Network: A Global Initiative to Improve Reporting of Health Research Studies” by Iveta Simera and David Moher describes the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency Of health Research that provides an online portal with resources for researchers in areas of human research.
(47) “Challenges and Responses in Mathematical Research Publishing” by Douglas N. Arnold returns to a near-detective style in tracking down an extended case of plagiarism that involves the new online journal scams. He also reveals the easy and dramatic manipulation of the notorious “Impact Factor” metric [misuse of which has since been condemned by 150 major science editors].
(48) “Plagiarism Understanding and Management in Russia and Central Europe” by Vladimir Vlassov explains how plagiarism is invisible but rampant in Russia, and sometimes difficult to prove. “These problems are made worse in Russia by the continuing dominance of the old elite with powerful networking and group support” and with a “science elite” that is “…connected to business and political ‘elites’.” He estimates that as many as one-third of doctorates in Russia may have been awarded to individuals with no postgraduate training!
(49) “Background to Responsible Research Publication Position Statements” by Elizabeth Wager and Sabine Kleinert is mainly a short preface to the following publication research statements and lists participants.
(50) ‘Responsible Research Publication: International Standards for Authors” by Elizabeth Wager and Sabine Kleinert is perhaps the richest and most usable chapter for those readers simply concerned with publication ethics. This is a “position statement developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity” and lays out (but does not always “solve”) issues of: honesty, originality, transparency, authorship versus acknowledgement, responsibility, peer review criteria, and meeting governmental or professional requirements for research on humans and animals. Highly recommended reading.
(51) “Responsible Research Publication: International Standards for Editors” by Sabine Kleinert and Elizabeth Wager is of course the most usable chapter in this book for editors. This is also a “position statement developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity” and lays out 1) editorial principles, 2)general editorial policies, 3) editorial policies related to research on humans or animals, and 4) editorial processes. It is primarily professional society codes for good editor practice. It is a consensus document. It does clearly place the burden for in-depth investigation of plagiarism and fraud in the hands of the investigator’s institution, not the editor. It addresses (but does not always “solve”) issues of: independence, distortion of journal metrics, confidentiality, managing authorship, conflicts of interest declaration, responding to criticism, retractions, consent, data protection, ensuring fair peer review and handling reviewer misconduct, and editorial conflicts of interest. Highly recommended reading.
Section VIII discusses Integrity in the News, Climate Change and Dual-Use Technology
(52) “Turning Up the Heat on Research Integrity: Lessons from ‘Climategate’” by Mark S. Frankel. The internet leak of e-mail traffic among climate scientists resulted in accusations of “...making global warming appear more serious than it is.” While human-induced climate changes is still consensus science, Frankel describes how the case revealed how there is a “...tendency of scientists to cross the line from being disinterested investigators after truth to advocates for a preconceived conclusion about issues at hand” (cited from a third party) and he concludes by asking three questions: 1) When scientists become advocates, does this “…detract from the objectivity and dispassion…” we expect? 2) “When do scientists cross the line…”? and 3) “What is meant by ‘responsible advocacy’?” We would need another whole book to answer that issue.
(53) “Climategate: A Journalist’s Perspective” by journalist Fred Pierce examines the difference between climate skeptics and data libertarians as well as the secrecy of peer review and access to data banks by outsiders. And, “...the climate science community was not responding effectively....” His view of science is that it is a closed society and this contributed to much public skepticism. He has at least one case of a peer reviewer probably sinking a science article more for positional than science reasons. A university obviously failed to fulfill Freedom of Information requests, and this also damaged perceptions. He alludes that more internal science “policing” may be needed but I am not sure how that could be done. And this “slightly off” view---that it might be possible to impose policing of science---reinforces some of our (scientists’) skepticism over the press.
(54) “Research Integrity’s Burning Fuse: Climate Truth before Change Explodes” by Ann Henderson-Sellers presents a hard-hitting factual analysis of the ClimateGate debacle. Her central point is that scientists are a special unique group (“meritocracy”). In this case, their “...climate change research into really dangerous outcomes that cannot be ruled out with less than a 10% chance.” She quotes Stanford’s Paul Ehrlich about “I’m not putting anything in an e-mail that I don’t want to appear on the front page of the Washington Times or Fox News” and that is really sage advice. She titles the next section: “Research requires a meritocracy, decisions demand democracy.” I would summarize the dilemma as: we don’t vote in science but we have to vote (or undergo some public consensus building even in non-democratic states, I would add) in socio-political actions. She describes the 2009 Copenhagen Accord a policy failure, in part, due to the failure of media to go beyond a focus on ethically bankrupt behavior to continue to cover the whole picture, and in part, to the IPCC losing the high ground and becoming a source of inadequate responses. She does take aim at peer review but I don’t accept her general criticism of peer review across all the science fields. She lists ten flaws in the IPCC operation at that time, lamenting that the fifth assessment is not due out until 2014. Well, it is now out and it wasn’t as tepid as her essay predicts. She does portray the issue as more of a generic “...public failure to move to minimize risks about which there is virtual certainty.” Henderson-Sellers even takes this conference’s organizers to task for hyping the allegations that data were skewed or misrepresented—gutsy! She likewise flies the flag for scientific “truth” and jabs at a major science journal for “weak praise” and a European country for imposing unneeded quality assurance requirements. Double gutsy!
(55) “Integrity in Research with Dual-Use Potential” by Lida Anestidou. I will use the example that a knife can be used to cut butter or to kill a person; that “dual use” posed problems in the past with physics (nuclear power plants versus nuclear bombs), and now is most severe in the biological sciences. Anestidou lists the seven dangers highlighted in the U.S. National Research Council’s Biotechnology Research in an Age of Terrorism as well as three additional areas added by the European Commission’s Ethics Review Unit. The quandary over whether there is forbidden knowledge science should not pursue is the job of another book, but there is a cost to not pursuing all avenues of research as well. According to a 2009 AAAS survey, the science community supports self-governance for oversight.
(56) “Governance Options for Dual-Use Research” by Gerald L. Epstein. Because cutting edge research is often “pure” rather than applied research, there is the question of whether non-science terrorists could exploit it and over-regulation could strangle advancement. But we have to plan ahead and he argues for softer “governance” within the community that does not have the force of law.
(57) “The Role of Leadership and Culture within the Laboratory” by David R. Franz. This is a good (and too short) discussion of the regulation of hazardous agents and registration of scientists that resulted from the anthrax letter attacks of 2001. Franz contrasts external terrorist challenges with “the insider threat” and thereby provides some meat to the debate on whether we “solve” this problem by laws or attitudes. He argues that it is not the various scientific procedures that cause danger, but the “intent” of persons. He argues that having science conducted under local “enlightened leaders” is the better protection. “Making new and stringent rules is the easy way out, but it may not be providing us as much security as we believe.” Indeed, this is nothing less than the 2000-year-old argument in China between the school of the professional (Confucianism) and the school of the legalists. (See "Legal Transparency in Dynastic China" by John W. Head and Xing Lijuan; Carolina Academic Press, softcover, 233 pages © 2013.) I vote this short 3-page essay the most insightful, and his presentation provides the intellectual structure behind the concerns of the prior essayists from Japan, China and India (see the connection?).
(58) “Dual-Use Research, Codes of Conduct, and the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity” by F. Daniel Davis. In 2007 the U.S. National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) released a Proposed Framework for the Oversight of Dual-Use Research and this essay discusses its focus on oversight by researchers: “The foundation of oversight of dual-use research includes investigator awareness, peer review, and local institutional responsibility….” Davis continues with a discussion of “moral agency” and essentially endorses the prior (Ch. 57) author’s position by stating: “Codes, as such, can do little to compensate for deficiencies of character on the part of any individual; nor can codes alone replace the morally formative process of good mentoring of the young by the experienced.”
(59) “Research with Dual-Use Potential in RCR Education: Is there a Role for Codes?” by Elizabeth Heitman applies many of the ideas discussed in the prior Section VI on education to the specific issue of dual-use, listing various codes and methodologies.
The Appendix provides the “Singapore Statement on Research Integrity.”
A list of contributors at the end provides the addresses of the participants.
There is no index, which would have been useful in comparing various essayists’ views on the same problem.
Unfortunately a few chapters have typos (a production editor problem at World Scientific?). As a “proceedings” collection, this is a book that you read for an academic purpose, not as literature, and it does its job showing research integrity to be a work-in-progress. However, there is much more work to be done. There is a serious gap in distinguishing between the criteria for science and those actions that distort that enterprise, and the codes which are nearly entirely constructed on social values. For instance, we could determine if language was a skill that had to be stimulated during a short time in human development or would not occur, by setting up an experiment depriving a set of children from exposure to speech until after age 6 perhaps; this would meet cold science requirements but not human research code and be rightly prohibited. On the other hand, the permanent recording of science research is an extension of the science requirement, but is being totally ignored by social codes in the case of disappearing online journals.
This is the partial prelude to a Third World Conference on Research Integrity.
John Richard Schrock
See all 2 customer reviews...
Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment, by Tony Mayer PDF
Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment, by Tony Mayer EPub
Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment, by Tony Mayer Doc
Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment, by Tony Mayer iBooks
Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment, by Tony Mayer rtf
Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment, by Tony Mayer Mobipocket
Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment, by Tony Mayer Kindle
Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment, by Tony Mayer PDF
Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment, by Tony Mayer PDF
Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment, by Tony Mayer PDF
Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment, by Tony Mayer PDF
![Merriam-Webster's Spanish-English Visual Dictionary [Paperback] [2011] (Author) Jean-Claude Corbeil, Merriam-WebsterFrom Merriam Webster](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sTXw_kux-Alr4HZDIc_rPMmbaI8bo0NJQ4csE_AG9hFe9AmE5xFYG5n5liCyVbJHvOhaG-W9m61bB_S_eaeTATEtNVL5snKAJPFMDrDWpr5nTvke-2lchH=s0-d "Merriam-Webster's Spanish-English Visual Dictionary [Paperback] [2011] (Author) Jean-Claude Corbeil, Merriam-WebsterFrom Merriam Webster")
![Merriam-Webster's Spanish-English Visual Dictionary [Paperback] [2011] (Author) Jean-Claude Corbeil, Merriam-WebsterFrom Merriam Webster](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_spUwL20FY18cN-HlqxAxllmLFLg2r6MGz5l1-_JyP65etRd0kKIIFfmxLQ2gkpOH9DqmAtwqmw5poRxz6Z7E4qx0ezDA=s0-d "Merriam-Webster's Spanish-English Visual Dictionary [Paperback] [2011] (Author) Jean-Claude Corbeil, Merriam-WebsterFrom Merriam Webster")
