Evolving research misconduct policies and their significance for physical scientists

Scientific misconduct includes the fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP) of concepts, data or ideas; some institutions in the United States have expanded this concept to include “other serious deviations (OSD) from accepted research practice.” It is the absence of this OSD clause that distinguishes scientific misconduct policies of the past from the “research misconduct” policies that should be the basis of future federal policy in this area. This paper introduces a standard for judging whether an action should be considered research misconduct as distinguished from scientific misconduct: by this standard, research misconduct must involve activities unique to the practice of science and must have the potential to negatively affect the scientific record. Although the number of cases of scientific misconduct is uncertain (only the NIH and the NSF keep formal records), the costs are high in terms of the integrity of the scientific record, diversions from research to investigate allegations, ruined careers of those eventually exonerated, and erosion of public confidence in science. Existing scientific misconduct policies vary from institution to institution and from government agency to government agency; some have highly developed guidelines that include OSD, others have no guidelines at all. One result has been that the federal False Claims Act has been used to pursue allegations of scientific misconduct. As a consequence, such allegations have been adjudicated in federal courts, rather than judged by scientific peers. The federal government is now establishing a first-ever research misconduct policy that would apply to all research funded by the federal government regardless of which agency funded the research or whether the research was carried out in a government, industrial or university laboratory. Physical scientists, who up to now have only infrequently been the subject of scientific misconduct allegations, must nonetheless become active in the debate over research misconduct policies and how they are implemented since they will now be explicitly covered by this new federal wide policy. Disclaimer: The authors are grateful for the support for conduct of this research provided by the United States Department of Energy (DOE). The views expressed in this paper are solely those of the authors and were formed and expressed without reference to positions taken by DOE or the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). The views of the authors are not intended either to reflect or imply positions of DOE or PNNL.     

Social and ethical dimensions of nanoscale science and engineering research

Continuing advances in human ability to manipulate matter at the atomic and molecular levels (i.e. nanoscale science and engineering) offer many previously unimagined possibilities for scientific discovery and technological development. Paralleling these advances in the various science and engineering subdisciplines is the increasing realization that a number of associated social, ethical, environmental, economic and legal dimensions also need to be explored. An important component of such exploration entails the identification and analysis of the ways in which current and prospective researchers in these fields conceptualize these dimensions of their work. Within the context of a National Science Foundation funded Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) program in nanomaterials processing and characterization at the University of Central Florida (2002–2004), here I present for discussion (i) details of a “nanotechnology ethics” seminar series developed specifically for students participating in the program, and (ii) an analysis of students’ and participating research faculty’s perspectives concerning social and ethical issues associated with nanotechnology research. I conclude with a brief discussion of implications presented by these issues for general scientific literacy and public science education policy.     

Government policy toward open source software: The puzzles of neutrality and competition

For a variety of policy reasons, governments throughout the world are now adopting different legislative and administrative strategies that support the development of FLOSS. Some governments have actually begun to procure FLOSS, whereas others have channeled public funds to large-scale FLOSS projects. This study demonstrates both the benefits and the risks of government policy favoring FLOSS from the perspective of economics, technology, and politics, and to further analyze whether these same policy goals can be achieved through government support of FLOSS. The most fundamental argument of the study is that, in lending its support to FLOSS, the difference between a government user and a business user is that the government should take into account society’s long-term interests, not merely its own interests as a consumer. His research interests include free/open source software, intellectual property, and digital technology policy.     

The research values of policy analysts

While there is growing consensus that conventional notions of the scientific method do not exhaust the methodological needs of policy analysis (at least applied analysis), there is less agreement as to what an improved method would entail. As a result, policy analysts must choose among often competing notions of what constitutes valid policy inquiry. Data from a content analysis of six policy journal articles together with responses from a survey of authors are used to determine what choices are made and whether these matter. Two sets of research norms are discovered within the policy studies community’one which mirrors traditional social science values and another which reflects recent attempts to adjust that methodology to meet the information needs of policy actors. Equally important, values tend, albeit slightly, to condition the character (e.g., degree of rigor or focus) of policy research. David M. Hedge is an associate professor of political science and director of the graduate program in public policy at West Virginia University. His research interests include regulatory politics, intergovernmental relations, and state politics/policy. Jin W. Mok is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Northern Iowa. His area of interests are public policy and methodology.     

Lab Work Goes Social,and Vice Versa: Strategising Public Engagement Processes

Midstream modulation is a form of public engagement with science which benefits from strategic application of science and technology studies (STS) insights accumulated over nearly 20 years. These have been developed from STS researchers’ involvement in practical engagement processes and research with scientists, science funders, policy and other public stakeholders. The strategic aim of this specific method, to develop what is termed second-order reflexivity amongst scientist-technologists, builds upon and advances earlier more general STS work. However this method is focused and structured so as to help generate such reflexivity—over the ‘upstream’ questions which have been identified in other STS research as important public issues for scientific research, development and innovation—amongst practising scientists-technologists in their specialist contexts (public or private, in principle). This is a different focus from virtually all such previous work, and offers novel opportunities for those key broader issues to be opened up. The further development of these promising results depends on some important conditions such as identifying and engaging research funders and other stakeholders like affected publics in similar exercises. Implementing these conditions could connect the productive impacts of midstream modulation with wider public engagement work, including with ‘uninvited’ public engagement with science. It would also generate broader institutional and political changes in the larger networks of institutional actors which constitute contemporary technoscientific innovation and governance processes. All of these various broader dimensions, far beyond the laboratory alone, need to be appropriately open, committed to democratic needs, and reflexive, for the aims of midstream modulation to be achieved, whilst allowing specialists to work as specialists.     

Scientific Reforms,Feminist Interventions,and the Politics of Knowing: An Auto‐ethnography of a Feminist Neuroscientist

Feminist science studies scholars have documented the historical and cultural contingency of scientific knowledge production. It follows that political and social activism has impacted the practice of science today; however, little has been done to examine the current cultures of science in light of feminist critiques and activism. In this article, I argue that, although critiques have changed the cultures of science both directly and indirectly, fundamental epistemological questions have largely been ignored and neutralized through these policy reforms. I provide an auto‐ethnography of my doctoral work in a neuroscience program to a) demonstrate how the culture of science has incorporated critiques into its practices and b) identify how we might use these changes in scientific practices to advance feminist science agendas. I critically analyze three areas in current scientific practice in which I see obstacles and opportunities: 1) research ethics, 2) diversity of research subjects and scientists, and 3) identification of a project's significance for funding. I argue that an understanding of the complicated and changing cultures of science is necessary for future feminist interventions into the sciences that directly challenge science's claim to epistemic authority.     

Contextualizing clinical research: the epistemological role of clinical equipoise

Since its introduction in 1987, Benjamin Freedman’s principle of clinical equipoise has enjoyed widespread uptake in bioethics discourse. Recent years, however, have witnessed a growing consensus that the principle is fundamentally flawed. One of the most vocal critics has undoubtedly been Franklin Miller. In a 2008 paper, Steven Joffe and Miller build on this critical work, offering a new conception of clinical research ethics based on science, taking what they call a “scientific orientation” toward the ethics of clinical research. Though there is much to recommend Joffe and Miller’s scientifically oriented conception of clinical research ethics, I believe that both the critical and constructive projects suffer from the same basic mistake: inattention to context. The internal norms of science cannot be fully specified, let alone satisfied, independently of contextual (external) factors that only come into view when we are attentive to the particular context of that form of inquiry.     

Effectiveness of research guidelines in prevention of scientific misconduct

In response to a series of allegations of scientific misconduct in the 1980’s, a number of scientific societies, national agencies, and academic institutions, including Harvard Medical School, devised guidelines to increase awareness of optimal scientific practices and to attempt to prevent as many episodes of misconduct as possible. The chief argument for adopting guidelines is to promote good science. There is no evidence that well-crafted guidelines have had any detrimental effect on creativity since they focus on design of research studies, documentation of research findings, assignment of credit through authorship, data management and supervision of trainees, not on the origin and evolution of ideas. This paper addresses a spectrum of causes of scientific misconduct or unacceptable scientific behavior and couples these with estimates of the potential for prevention if guidelines for scientific investigation are adopted. The conclusion is that clear and understandable guidelines should help to reduce the chance that flawed research will escape from our institutions. However, they cannot be relied upon alone to prevent all instances of scientific misconduct and should be regarded rather as one means of bolstering the integrity of the entire scientific enterprise.     

Four programs of research in scientific communication

Selected studies of scientific communication, philosophy and sociology of science, sociology of knowledge, and information science are reviewed according to the assumptions they make about scientific information. Based on these assumptions and their historical order of development, the studies are organized into four distinct “programs” of research: artifact studies, user studies, network studies, and laboratory studies. The four programs represent a continuum of definitions of information, from the information-as-commodity definition that is embodied in the artifact studies, to the contextual, meaning-based definition that is characteristic of the laboratory studies. They also provide a rich framework for a renewal of research interest in this area among communication scholars and others interested in the social impacts of information. “When I studied scientific communication back in the sixties, it was a great field to be in ... we thought we knew just about everything there was to know about scientific communication.”¹ Bill Paisley, 1985 Leah A. Lievrouw is assistant professor in the Department of Communication at Rutgers University. Dr. Lievrouw received her PhD from the Annenberg School of Communications at the University of Southern California. Her research interests include scientific communication and the social aspects of telecommunications technologies.     

The continuing need for disinterested research

For scientific knowledge to be trustworthy, it needs to be dissociated from material interests. Disinterested research also performs other important non-instrumental roles. In particular, academic science has traditionally provided society with reliable, imaginative public knowledge and independent, self-critical expertise. But this type of science is not compatible with the practice of instrumental research, which is typically proprietary, prosaic, pragmatic and partisan. With ever-increasing dependence on commercial or state funding, all modes of knowledge production are merging into a new, ‘post-academic’ research culture which is dominated by utilitarian goals. Growing concern about conflicts of interest is thus a symptom of deep-seated malaise in science and medicine. An expanded version of this paper was presented at an International Conference on “Conflict of Interest and its Significance in Science and Medicine” held in Warsaw, Poland on 5–6 April, 2002.     

Measuring consensus about scientific research norms

In this paper, we empirically explore some manifestations of norms for the conduct of science. We focus on scientific research ethics and report survey results from 606 scientists who received funding in 1993 and 1994 from the Division of Molecular and Cellular Biology of the Biology Directorate of the National Science Foundation. We also report results for 91 administrators charged with overseeing research integrity at the scientists' research institutions. Both groups of respondents were presented with a set of scenarios, designed by fractional factorial methods, describing different kinds of scientific conduct that in the eyes of some would likely be unethical. Respondents then were asked to evaluate each of these scenarios for how unethical the behavior might be and what kinds of sanctions might be appropriate. We use the responses to consider the nature of consensus around norms related to the practice of science and in particular, similarities and differences between scientists and science administrators. Implications for policy are also discussed.     

Water quality, agricultural policy and science

This paper analyses how agricultural policy and science deal with the problem of increasing exploitation of low quality irrigation water and consequent deterioration of water quality in the States of Punjab and Haryana in India. In these cereal growing tracts the policy objective of food security is translated into production technologies, price protection and subsidies. Deterioration of water quality is countered with technocentric solutions. The paper argues that the response of science to the complexities involved in natural resource problems or in the scientific understanding of farmers partial response to technological solutions recommended to improve degraded resources, is due to the existing “administrative rationalism” of natural resource bureaucracies. This administrative rationalism, “the problem-solving discourse which emphasizes the role of the expert rather than the citizen” allows policy and science to maintain their hierarchy in determining policy goals and technological solutions with scant ecological or democratic concerns. Sustainable use of water demands institutional reform in agricultural policy and the agricultural sciences. With an inter-disciplinary training in the agricultural sciences and economics, her publications address the history of and institutional reform in agricultural science, the evaluation of agricultural research, and the organization and measurement of agricultural research effort. This paper is based on an in-house project on “Ex-post evaluation of soil science technologies,” conducted during 1997–2001, in collaboration with Sunita Sangar (then QHS Fellow, NISTADS) whose Ph.D. thesis on the same topic has been submitted to IIT, Delhi in January 2002. Sunita Sangar has a degree in the life sciences, and is interested in science and technology policy issues related to soil and water resources. The authors are currently working on the NATP sponsored project, on an ecological economics framework for the evaluation of soil science research in India.     

Lessons on the utilization of research from nine case experiences in the natural hazards field

Research-funding organizations and research investigators can take several steps to improve the utilization of scientific research. These steps were derived from nine case studies of research projects in the natural hazards field, representing three academic fields of study: physical science, social science, and architecture. The case studies investigated the extent to which these projects corroborated the conditions associated with specific theories of research utilization. Following a replication research design, the cross-case conclusions were that greater utilization will result where research investigators and users maintain a rich set of professional communications over time, leading to research that is: academically excellent, addresses practical problems, can be modified in the early stages to be responsive to users’ needs, and produces usable products. Robert K. Yin is President of COSMOS Corporation, which specializes in both social science research and in information systems development. Dr. Yin also serves as a visiting professor, department of Computer Science and Information Systems, American University, Washington, D.C. 20016. Gwendolyn B. Moore is a senior manager for Nolan, Norton, & Co., an information technology affiliate of Peat Marwick. She specializes in information technology and strategic planning projects, and holds an MBA in Business Policy from the University of Massachusetts.     

Guidelines for training in the ethical conduct of scientific research

Historically, scientists in training have learned the rules of ethical conduct by the example of their advisors and other senior scientists and by practice. This paper is intended to serve as a guide for the beginning scientist to some fundamental principles of scientific research ethics. The paper focuses less on issues of outright dishonesty or fraud, and more on the positive aspects of ethical scientific behavior; in other words, what a scientist should do to maintain a high level of ethical conduct in research. There are a number of fairly specific rules, guidelines, or commonly accepted operating principles that have evolved for the ethical conduct of science. In order to discuss this code of ethics, this paper is divided into sections dealing with specific areas of scientific ethics. These areas are: data collection and storage, ownership of data, confidentiality, communication, authorship, collaboration, the peer review system, and rules of dealing with ethical complaints. Illustrative case histories are presented to provide examples of the type of ethical dispute or problem being discussed. If scientific trainees learn the accepted rules of behavior that govern the conduct of science, ethical problems that arise out of ignorance, misunderstanding, or poor communication can be avoided.     

Methodology for studying research networks in the developing world: Generating information for science and technology policy

Science and technology policy in the developing world involves special problems since much of the financial support for S&;T originates outside the countries where research is done. The development of information for policy and strategic planning decisions is therefore critical for national research policymakers, international organizations, and donors. However, prior attempts have been plagued by serious methodological problems. We describe a multifaceted approach for generating systematic information on scientific and technological institutions in developing countries based on the concept of the research system as a multiorganizational network. By providing an account of how this approach was implemented in a three-country study we hope to shed light on several related problems in developing information for policy. First, how can relevant actors in research systems be identified? Second, how can a national research system be systematically surveyed? Third, how can system-wide estimates of organizational linkages and performance be obtained?     

Is science socially constructed—And can it still inform public policy?

This paper addresses, and seeks to correct, some frequent misunderstandings concerning the claim that science is socially constructed. It describes several features of scientific inquiry that have been usefully illuminated by constructivist studies of science, including the mundane or tacit skills involved in research, the social relationships in scientific laboratories, the causes of scientific controversy, and the interconnection of science and culture. Social construction, the paper argues, should be seen not as an alternative to but an enhancement of scientists’ own professional understanding of how science is done. The richer, more finely textured accounts of scientific practice that the constructivist approach provides are potentially of great relevance to public policy. This paper is based on a Topical Lecture presented at AMSIE'96, the 162nd National Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Baltimore, Maryland, 8–13 February 1996. The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the opinions of the AAAS or its Board of Directors. For permission to cite or quote any part of this paper please refer to the author for permission.     

The analytic hierarchy process: An effective tool for a strategic decision of a multidisciplinary research center

The external orientation of academic research centers has a high impact on their internal organization. A multidisciplinary research center of the University of Groningen in the Netherlands is concerned with a strategic, organizational decision impelled by a shift in its external orientation. This decision implies a choice for either an organizational structure based on disciplines or an organizational structure based on the fields of application of research. Due to diverging opinions concerning the desirability of each alternative, a multicriteria decisionmaking approach has been applied. Saaty’s Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) has been used to facilitate joint decisionmaking processes by evoking consistent logical foundations and consensus formations. Strategic management has used a forward AHP model to determine the future research activities of this center based on its external orientation. Subsequently, two comparable decisionmaking groups have used a backward AHP model to choose the most appropriate organizational structure, based on criteria for scientific research. Feedback procedures have reduced disagreements and have led to a clear decision for a structure based on application fields of research.     

A Qualitative Study of the Activities and Outcomes of Domestic Violence Coordinating Councils

Efforts to promote systems change frequently involve the creation of councils, coalitions, and other collaborative settings. However, research, to date, reports limited empirical evidence that they achieve desired outcomes (Roussos and Fawcett, Annu Rev Public Health 21:369–402, 2000). The precise nature of this evidence base has received less attention. In particular, formal investigations into council effectiveness (a) rarely highlight the specific nature of collaborative efforts; (b) emphasize fairly distal markers as the “gold standard” for effectiveness; (c) focus largely on formative “outcomes” (e.g., action plan quality); and (d) utilize primarily quantitative research approaches. The current study extends previous research by employing a qualitative approach to investigate the particular activities and proximal outcomes of 41 domestic violence coordinating councils. Study findings suggest that councils engage in six primary activities: discussing issues, sharing information, identifying weaknesses in the system’s response, providing training for key stakeholders, engaging in public/community education, and lobbying key stakeholders who are not council members. Three proximal outcomes were consistently identified in council efforts: the promotion of knowledge, relationships, and institutionalized change. Attending more directly to proximal outcomes and concrete activities in our research has important implications for conceptualizing and researching the effectiveness of councils and collaborative settings.     

Governmental research funding and economic distortion

Science and technology are “good” things. Still, there are many good things that should not be done by government and there are many other things that the private sector does far better. Government-funded research and development (R&D) falls into both these categories. Research funding is big business. In 1998, the Department of Health and Human Services received $13.1 billion, the National Aeronautics & Space Administration $9.3 billion, the Department of Energy $5.6 billion, and the National Science Foundation $2.3 billion. Newt Gingrich, still adhering to the Progressive dictum that “government does it better,” is now calling for a doubling of current federal research expenditures. This article will assess the theoretical arguments for government-funded research and examine specific research programs of the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency. Throughout, I will argue that private property rights, the rule of law, and free markets are the greatest incentives to conduct scientific research; under-investment in R&D is due not to market failure but to the failure to have markets. a public interest group active in economic and environmental public policy issues. Located in Washington, D.C., CEI has a web site at http://www.cei.org. Mr. Smith has debated free-market approaches to public problems as a guest on MacNeil/Lehrer, Crossfire, and 20/20. This article began as testimony before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, House Committee on Science, 25 March 1998. National Science Foundation website.