As promised, in this post I’m examining the “best practices” document (PDF) issued by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Ethics Education Committee in the wake of the “Aetogate” allegations. Here, I’ll discuss the specific recommendations made in that document. And in an upcoming post, I’ll turn to some of the discussions paleontologists are now having (through the magic of the Internet) on the accepted practices in their field, in hopes of gaining some insight to the fit between actual practices and the “best practices” described by the SVP Ethics Education Committee.
Category Archives: Ethical research
The Hellinga Retractions (part 1): when replication fails, what should happen next?
Because Abi asked me to, I’m going to discuss the fascinating case of the Hellinga retractions. Since this is another case where there is a lot to talk about, I’m going to take it in two parts. In the first part, working from the Chemical & Engineering News article by Celia Henry Arnaud (May 5, 2008) [1], I’ll focus on the common scientific activity of trying to build on a piece of published work. What happens when the real results seem not to fit with the published results? What should happen?
In part 2, drawing from the Nature news feature by Erika Check Hayden (May 15, 2008) [2], I’ll consider this case in the context of scientific collaborations — both within research groups and between research groups. In light of the differentials in experience and power (especially between graduate students and principal investigators), who is making the crucial scientific decisions, and on the basis of what information?
But let’s start with the papers [3,4] that came out of the research group of Homme W. Hellinga, professor of biochemistry at Duke University.
SVP Ethics Education Commitee statement: lessons learned from ‘Aetogate’.
Following up on the post in which I examined how the SVP Ethics Education Committee responded to the allegations of unethical conduct that have come to be known as “Aetogate,” this post will discuss what the committee identifies as the “lessons learned” from this investigation. Once again, I’ll be drawing from the Statement from the Executive Committee (PDF). The third post will consider the “best practices” (PDF) proposed by the committee.
The Statement from the Executive Committee enumerates seven “lessons learned,” couching these in terms of ways “these conflict might have been avoided.” I’ll take each of them in turn.
SVP Ethics Education Commitee conclusions on ‘Aetogate’.
A week ago, while I was busy grading and being tenured, the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology released its report on the allegations that have come to be known as “Aetogate” (about which I’ve posted here, here, here, and here). ReBecca was kind enough to forward the Statement from the Executive Committee (PDF) and the accompanying “Best practices” document (PDF). Also, you should read what Brian and Chris have to say about the decision.
Since I’m finding myself with a lot to say about these documents, I’m going to break it up into more digestible pieces. This post will examine how the SVP Ethics Education Committee responded to the two sets of allegations it was considering. A second post will discuss what the committee identifies as the “lessons learned” from this investigation. A third post will then consider the “best practices” proposed by the committee.
The facts aren’t always pretty: doctored images in scientific journals.
In today’s Chronicle of Higher Education there’s an article about the methods journal publishers are deploying to detect doctored images in scientific manuscripts. From the article:
Relationships in lab groups.
This post is standing in for a lecture and class discussion that would be happening today if I knew how to be in two places at once. (Welcome Phil. 133 students! Make yourselves at home in the comments, and feel free to use a pseudonym if you’d rather not comment under your real name.)
The topic at hand is the way relationships in research groups influence the kind of science that comes out of those groups, as well as the understanding the members of the group have of what it means to do good science. Our jumping off point is an article by Vivian Weil and Robert Arzbaecher titled “Relationships In Laboratories and Research Communities.” [1]
Some thoughts on ‘Aetogate’
Brian reminds us not to mistake the lull in the action in “Aetogate” (the charges of unethical conduct by Spencer Lucas and colleagues) for a resolution to the matter. We’re still waiting for the ruling from the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology ethics committee. In the meantime, here are a few thoughts on the “verdict” from the inquiry conducted by the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science and by the New Mexico Department of Cultural Affairs. (There is a 40+ page PDF of Spencer Lucas’s written responses to the allegations and of the inquiry’s findings here.)
What kind of deception of human subjects is acceptable?
One of the key requirements that researchers conducting studies with human subjects must meet is that they obtain the informed consent of the participating subjects (or of a parent or guardian, if the subject is not able to give informed consent himself or herself). However, there are particular instances where giving the subjects complete information about the study at the outset may change the outcome of the study — namely, it may make it practically impossible to measure what the research is trying to measure. If these studies are not to be ruled out completely, doing them necessitates some amount of deception or concealment, which seems to be at odds with the need to establish informed consent.
Of course, there are ethical guidelines for dealing with studies that require deception. But recently a reader emailed me about a particular study where there might have been concealment that was an impediment to informed consent rather than a methodological requirement of the study. Here are the broad details*:
Faculty members are solicited to participate in a sociological study of networking within their academic departments. Indeed, a university administrator strongly encourages faculty members to participate in the research by noting that the data it collects is expected to bolster a grant application geared toward funding “institutional transformations”.
The information provided to prospective subjects on the consent form makes no mention of using the results of this study to secure further grants. Some of the faculty who are being solicited to participate in the present study have objections to the sorts of “institutional transformations” promoted by the grant program mentioned in the administrator’s encouragement to participate.
Is the failure to mention this intended use of the study results in the consent forms a violation of informed consent?
Should researchers share data?
A colleague of mine (who has time to read actual printed-on-paper newspapers in the morning) pointed me toward an essay by Andrew Vickers in the New York Times (22 January 2008) wondering why cancer researchers are so unwilling to share their data. Here’s Vickers’ point of entry to the issue:
How committed are paleontologists to objectivity (in questions of ethical conduct)?
There’s another development in Aetogate, which you’ll recall saw paleontologists William Parker, Jerzy Dzik, and Jeff Martz alleging that Spencer Lucas and his colleagues at the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science (NMMNHS) were making use of their work or fossil resources without giving them proper credit. Since I last posted on the situation, NMMNHS decided to convene an ethics panel to consider the allegations. This ought to be good news, right?
It probably depends on what one means by “consider”.