Scientific Honesty: How do we value the "giants" that prepared our path?
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Scientific Honesty:
How do we value the „giants“ that
prepared our path?
09.07.2014: DocDay: Standing on the shoulders of giants Workshop Scientific Honesty Barbara Witter
Outline
• What is Scientific Misconduct ?
• Your tasks
• What to do in case of a conflict
09.07.2014: DocDay: Standing on the shoulders of giants Workshop Scientific Honesty Barbara Witter
What is Scientific Misconduct ?
35
30
Have you already
25
20
15 been witness to
10
5
scientific
0
a c e g i k m o q s u w y misconduct ?
09.07.2014: DocDay: Standing on the shoulders of giants Workshop Scientific Honesty Barbara WitterWhat is Scientific Misconduct ?
1. Fabrication of data
2. Selective and undisclosed rejection of undesired
results,
Substitution of undesired results with fictitious data
3. Erroneous use of statistical methods with the aim of
drawing other conclusions than those warranted by
the available data
4. Plagiarism of the results or entire articles of other
researchers (“Causa Guttenberg”)
09.07.2014: DocDay: Standing on the shoulders of giants Workshop Scientific Honesty Barbara WitterWhat is Scientific Misconduct ?
5. Distorted interpretation of results,
distorted representation of the results of others,
Omission of recognition of original observations made
by other scientists
6. Wrongful or inappropriate attribution of authorship /
Exclusion of persons from the group of authors
7. Exaggeration of the personal publication list
8. Presentation of results to the public by-passing a
critical professional forum in the form of journals or
scientific associations
09.07.2014: DocDay: Standing on the shoulders of giants Workshop Scientific Honesty Barbara Witter„Scientists behaving badly“:
Results from a survey published in Nature 2005
Percentage of scientists who say that they engaged in the behaviour
listed within the previous three years (n=3247)
Fabrication of data 0.3 %
Using another‘s ideas without obtaining permission or giving due credit 1.0 %
(Plagiarism)
Dropping observations or data points from analyses based on a 15.3 %
‚gut feeling‘ that they were inaccurate
Withholding details of methodology or results 10.8 %
Failing to present data that contradict one‘s own previous research 6.0 %
Change the design, methodology or results of a study in response to 15.5 %
pressure from a funding source
Publishing the same data or results in two or more publications 4.7 %
Inappropriately assigning authorship credit 10.0 %
09.07.2014: DocDay:record
Inadequate Standing on the shoulders
keeping relatedoftogiants
researchWorkshop
projectsScientific Honesty Barbara
27.5 Witter
%Investigations in Germany and Austria
2010 & 2013
Aus: Jörg Neufeld: Wissenschaftliches Fehlverhalten - Selbstauskünfte des wissenschaftlichen Personals
in Österreich und Deutschland. iFQ Bericht Juni 2014
pressure from a Faked results Using Ideas of others Authorship
funding source
Distorted Mistakes in
Wrongful use of Review Process
funding interpretation
German Austrian Austrian
Professors Professors Scientists
2010
09.07.2014: DocDay: Standing 2013
on the shoulders of giants 2013 Honesty
Workshop Scientific Barbara WitterThe tip of the iceberg?
The most severe cases are rare
FFP = Fabrication, Falsification, Plagiarism
But: focus must not be only on FFP:
A wider spectrum of misconduct can
damage the integrity of science
99% of these cases will never be uncovered
09.07.2014: DocDay: Standing on the shoulders of giants Workshop Scientific Honesty Barbara
© Uwe Kils WitterYour task
Documentation of
o lab work,
o equipment and parameters,
o raw data,
o modeling and calculations,
o results: annotated and indexed,
o hardware and software,
o failure investigation
Everything retained for 10 years
09.07.2014: DocDay: Standing on the shoulders of giants Workshop Scientific Honesty Barbara WitterWhat can be done?
Whistleblowing
If you have any doubts about misconduct in your team,
try and talk with the respective person first,
and with your supervisor
You may act anonymously
It may help to ask a neutral third person to mediate
Avoid to participate in disseminating any kind of rumors,
avoid revenge or defamation
You are actively contributing to the integrity of science,
Whistleblowing is an important part of quality assurance in science
If this does not help to clarify the situation:
09.07.2014: DocDay: Standing on the shoulders of giants Workshop Scientific Honesty Barbara WitterOmbudspersons
At OVGU: Kommission für den Umgang mit wissenschaftlichem
Fehlverhalten,
Head: Prof. Rudolf Kruse, kruse@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de
Representative: Prof. Jörg Frommer, joerg.frommer@med.ovgu.de
http://www.ovgu.de/Universit%C3%A4t/Struktur/Senat/Kommissionen/Kommission+
f%C3%BCr+den+Umgang+mit+wissenschaftlichem+Fehlverhalten.html
Leitlinien – guidelines
http://www.uni-magdeburg.de/rektorat/senat/lfwv.pdf
DFG: http://www.ombudsman-fuer-die-wissenschaft.de
09.07.2014: DocDay: Standing on the shoulders of giants Workshop Scientific Honesty Barbara WitterSupervisor conflicts
very difficult task - no easy solution
Don‘t wait too long – talk with other people confidentially
o Colleagues
o Graduate School Coordinator
o The Ombudsperson
No tricks, no blackmail
avoid embarrassing situations for all sides
You are in a weak position,
but you are also the expert for your project
In general, think of misunderstandings, not abuse
09.07.2014: DocDay: Standing on the shoulders of giants Workshop Scientific Honesty Barbara WitterPossible Sanctions
in cases of scientific misconduct
Labour law consequences (dismissal, …)
Academic consequences (withdrawal of the doctoral degree, …)
Civil law consequences (restitutory claims, surrender of grants, …)
Penal consequences
(according to the Penal Code – Strafgesetzbuch):
Damage to property
• § 303 StGB: damage to property
• § 303a StGB: alteration of data
Infringement of the private sphere or of personal secrets
• § 202a StGB: the spying out of data
• § 204 StGB: exploitation of secrets belonging to others
• ……
09.07.2014: DocDay: Standing on the shoulders of giants Workshop Scientific Honesty Barbara WitterReferences
(1) Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (1998 / 2013): Sicherung guter wissenschaftlicher Praxis / Proposals for
Safeguarding Good Scientific Practice.
http://www.dfg.de/foerderung/grundlagen_rahmenbedingungen/gwp/index.html
(2) Leitlinien der Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg zum Umgang mit wissenschaftlichem Fehlverhalten.
http://www.uni-magdeburg.de/rektorat/senat/lfwv.pdf
(3) Leibnitz-Gesellschaft – Wissenschaftsgemeinschaft Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz e.V. (19. 11. 1998) Empfehlungen
zu guter wissenschaftlicher Praxis. http://www.leibniz-gemeinschaft.de/forschung/gute-wissenschaftliche-praxis/
(4) Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (24. 10. 2000), Regeln zur Sicherung guter wissenschaftlicher Praxis.
http://www.mpg.de/198043/Forschungsfreiheit, http://www.mpg.de/229644/Research_freedom
(5) Ombudsman für die Wissenschaft: http://www.ombudsman-fuer-die-wissenschaft.de/
(6) „Gute wissenschaftliche Praxis“ – Symposium der Allianz der Wissenschaftsorganisationen.
http://www.dfg.de/foerderung/grundlagen_rahmenbedingungen/gwp/111129_symposium/index.jsp
(7) European Commission: Ethics for researchers.
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/fp7/89888/ethics-for-researchers_en.pdf
(8) Martinson, Brian C.; Anderson, Melissa S.; Vries, Raymond de (2005): Scientists behaving badly. In: Nature 435
(7043), S. 737–738. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7043/pdf/435737a.pdf
(9) Jörg Neufeld: Wissenschaftliches Fehlverhalten - Selbstauskünfte des wissenschaftlichen Personals in Österreich
und Deutschland. iFQ Bericht Juni 2014
http://www.oeawi.at/downloads/FWF_%C3%96AWI_Fehlverhalten_Neufeld_2014-06-03_final.pdf
09.07.2014: DocDay: Standing on the shoulders of giants Workshop Scientific Honesty Barbara WitterYou can also read
