Instructions to Authors - Case Study Example

Essay Case Studies of scientific misconduct Introduction To protect the integrity of research, the scientific community takes strong action against perceived scientific misconduct. In the current definition provided by the U.S. government: “Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.” (The National Endowment for the Humanities, 2001). Several journals publish their own ethical guidelines (Coats, 2008). However, it is surprising that many journals say little or nothing in their “Instructions to Authors” about which types of data manipulations and data presentation conducts are acceptable and which are not. A particularly delicate issue is that of digital image manipulation. In the days before imaging software became so widely available, making adjustments to image data in the darkroom required considerable effort and/or expertise. It is now very simple, and thus tempting, to adjust or modify digital image files. Many such manipulations have been recently discussed and stigmatized in biology top journals (Rossner, 2004). For what concerns handling of scientific misconduct, several institutions have issued guidelines, even though determining appropriate sanctions is often very difficult and may vary in any specific case. As remarked in the NIH guidelines, sanctions imposed on a particular individual may have consequences that are much broader, i.e. members of the laboratory may be indirectly or directly affected as well. There should be a logical correspondence between the nature and severity of the proven allegations and the sanctions imposed. (NIH Committee on Scientific Conduct and Ethics, 2004). The sanctions may include, but are not limited to, the following: removal from a particular project; letter of reprimand to be included in the individuals NIH personnel file; special monitoring of work; decrease in laboratory support probation; suspension with or without pay; denial of a raise in salary or a salary/rank reduction; termination of employment (NIH Committee on Scientific Conduct and Ethics, 2004). Questions and answers CASE ONE a) Do you agree with the committee’s finding? Why or why not? I do agree, since the student behavior in case report clearly corresponds to the current definition(s) of scientific misconduct issued by several independent institutions and committees (see Introduction for such a definition). b) Dr. Potter was a co-author of the submitted manuscript. Should he also be found guilty of scientific misconduct? He should not be directly guilty of scientific misconduct. Nonetheless, he is likely the last author of the paper since he is the mentor of the student. Last authors, and corresponding authors, have several clearly stated responsibilities, such as controlling that the co-authors of their work are mentioned and agree to terms and conditions of publications etc. Last authors and corresponding authors have also implicit responsibilities, such as mentoring and controlling students behavior and skills. As a part of the education program underlying a laboratory experience, there is teaching scientific behavior. The latter consists of not only making experiments following the scientific method but it also includes ethical behavior, since science is based on the assumption that experiments are true and reliable. Dr. Potter will likely have severe consequences from his lack of attention; for instance, he will need to publish a corrigendum or to retreat his paper from the journal. This act negatively affects ones credibility with negative fallout on future publications. c) Should the university revoke George’s degree? Revoking a students degree is one of the sanctions hypothesized by several american universities in the case of scientific misconducts. For instance, Case western Reserve University, in his Graduate School guidelines on handling scientific misconducts states: “ In the event that a suspected violation of academic integrity standards is reported after graduation, the Dean for Graduate Studies will make a determination as to the feasibility of investigation and adjudication. Graduation will not preempt investigation or adjudication of a suspected violation when those processes are feasible. If a student is found responsible for a violation and the sanction imposed makes the student ineligible to earn her or his degree, the degree may be revoked.” (Case Western Reserve University, school of graduate studies, 2006) In this specific case a final answer is not possible in the absence of the detailed results by the faculty investigating committee. Only their report would allow to clearly assess the severity of the scientific misconduct. However, on the basis of the available data, I do not think that the degree should be revoked. The basis of this reasoning is the fact that the alteration of image(s) proofing part of the student’s scientific work was not compromising the whole course of the studies. A thesis comes following a whole period of higher education during which the candidate is evaluated by several exams; the thesis itself is a significant and complex period of time spent in the laboratory where the student learns in practice how to make research. It is unlikely that a specific set of data is essential to conceive and write a thesis. Therefore, the thesis and the previous career should maintain their validity. This being said, it is obvious that the student should be sanctioned in some way. CASE 2 a) Should these experiments be allowed to continue? The experiments should be subjected to a deep examination by the institutional IACUC (see below, part b). Its seems from the case description that not all the countermeasure to avoid stress and pain were undertaken (see below, part b). If that is the case, the experiments could continue under novel and more rigorous procedures for a limited period of time and then resubmitted to judgement by the IACUC for definitive stop or approval. b)What kind of arguments or considerations should be considered in reaching judgment on this question? Experiments on animal are regulated in the USA, specifically for what concerns the possibility of inducing pain (“Laboratory Animal Welfare Act”, 1966, P.L. 89-544). In the US, the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals defines in practice the parameters for animal testing regulations (“Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals”, ILAR, National Research Council, 1996 , pg 64). Pain and stress has to be avoided to an extent comparable to what one would do with humans. Therefore, analgesia and sedation must be used to avoid pain in all cases this would be not a negligible issue for humans. All this is particularly true because the animal used in the experiments are mammals, which are anatomically and physiologically similar to humans. In our case it seems clear that the animals are stressed and suffer. However, from the available data the countermeasures taken to avoid or diminish to a bearable level the negative effects of the experimentation are not clear. The whole case report appear to be rather inconsistent and thus difficult to judge. For instance, from the sentence “the rats become so aggressive that they literally tear each other apart in fits of rage” it seems that the rats are hosted in common cages. While sharing cages (withing certain limits) is the routine practice in all animal facilities, it is apparent that it is not reasonable in this specific case, where the animals should be individually hosted in separate cages to avoid fights – it seems unlikely from the text and the current knowledge of testosterone effects on hostility (Archer, 1991) that the animals are prone to attack themselves. c) Who should have the final say in this ethical decision the investigators, the university’s IACUC, the university’s dean, or the funding agency? The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) play a central role in regulating ethically sensitive research and in applying federal and state laws. For grant applications and sceintific publications involving animal experimentation, it is often mandatory to have and cite the approval by the local ICACUC. Therefore, the latter should have the final say on the issue. SOURCES Archer, Jhon. “The influence of testosterone on human aggression.” British Journal of Psychology, 82 (1991) 1-28. Print. Case Western Reserve University, school of graduate studies. “Academic Integrity Procedures and Rules.” (2006). Published online at http://sourcebook.od.nih.gov/resethicscases/sm-booklet.htm Coats, Andrew J.S. . “Ethical authorship and publishing.” International Journal of Cardiology, 131 (2009) 149–150. National Endowment for the Humanities “Research Misconduct Policy.” (2001). Published online at http://www.neh.gov/grants/guidelines/researchmisconduct.html. NIH Committee on Scientific Conduct and Ethics. “A Guide to the Handling of Scientific Misconduct Allegations in the Intramural Research Program at the NIH.” (2004). Published online at http://sourcebook.od.nih.gov/resethicscases/sm-booklet.htm Rossner, Mike; Yamada, Kenneth M. “What’s in a picture? The temptation of image manipulation.” The Journal of Cell Biology, 166 (2004) 11–15 . Print. Read More