Responsible Research Conduct and Ethics: Guidelines and Principles

VSEER: Introduction to VSEER: Introduction to Research Research Week 4 Week 4 How do/don t I do this? Responsible Conduct of Research Module Created by LeAnn Faidley, Wartburg Presented by --LeAnn Faidley, Wartburg College

Announcements & Q/A Status Update have you completed? Modules for weeks 1, 2, 3, and 4 Profile of Myself as a STEM Researcher Assignments for Wk 1, 2, 3 (Linked-in, Mentor request email, paper review) feedback provided for 1 and 2. Virtual Lab Bio and Questions (pre) and Reflection (post) for wk 2, 3 Community Building Assignments: Agreement, Introduction, Personal Board of Directors, Advice to My Peers, Intersectionality Bouquet Upcoming: Meeting with your Campus Director (VSEER) or Arnold (RISE-UP) this week Week 5 complete the module and assignment. No in person class on July 5th Virtual Lab Visit: Dr. Hinton, BioMed U. of Iowa/Vanderbilt Tues @ 1 Community Building Thurs @ 1

Personal Code of Ethics Think 3 min What are the most important parts of your personal code of ethics those things that dictate how you go through life, treat others, and make decisions? Pair 5 min Share what you were thinking about. What commonalities/differences do you notice between your partners response and your own? Share 5 min What did you identify as similarities? What did you identify as differences?

Research Code of Ethics Responsible Conduct of Research Honesty in reporting scientific data Careful transcription and analysis of scientific results to avoid error Independent analysis and interpretation of results that is based on data and not on the influence of external sources Open sharing of methods, data, and interpretations through publication and presentation Sufficient validation of results through replication and collaboration with peers Proper crediting of sources of information, data, and ideas Moral obligations to society

Human and Animal Subjects Human Respect for Persons Respect Autonomy and protect those with diminished autonomy Informed consent, withdrawal, information, feedback, confidentiality and/or anonymity Beneficence - Do no harm balance toward benefit not risk, benefit society Justice - Moral and legal treatment, give credit where it is due Animal Replacement is there another way? Reduction can we use fewer animals? Refinement can we adjust methods to reduce pain and suffering?

Publication Ethics: Authorship Give credit (only) where credit is due Things to Avoid: Fabrication Falsification Plagiarism Self-plagiarism

Case Study Part 1 (5 min) Read your assigned section and discuss the questions that follow If you have time you can skim the other sections. Be prepared to share you thoughts with the larger group. Overview Assignment A Grad Student (Larson) tells lab head (Dr. Grey) that he doesn t believe postdoc (Dunbar) could have possibly completed all the work he said he did. Dr. Grey dismisses it. Breakout Room 1 B New postdoc (Adams) notices a problem with a figure in a published paper by Dunbar, Grey, and Larson. Dr. Grey confronts Dunbar. Breakout Room 2 C + D Dr. Grey appoints 3 senior postdocs to investigate Dunbar s other work in the lab and reports to the department chair. Dunbar data handling is questioned by the senior postdocs. Breakout Room 3 E Larson looks into original question in A and finds problems. Reports to Dr. Grey who confronts Dunbar. Breakout Room 4 Case study provided for use in training by the NIH Community

Discussion: (10 min) Part A: Describe the interaction between Dr. Grey and Larson. Did Larson do the right thing? Is there more he should have done or done differently? Did Dr. Grey do the right thing? Part B: Describe what Adams found and how Dunbar reacted. Do you think he fabricated data in Fig 1 or Fig 4? Does it mater that he didn t mean to deceive and the conclusions don t change? Part C & D: Describe what was found about how Dunbar handled data What did he do wrong? Why was this wrong? Part E: Describe what Dunbar did in preparing papers Was this fabrication or falsification or just questionable? Does it matter that the conclusions drawn were not changed with the new data? Does it matter that only the real data was published? What could the impact on society be of these practices?

Case Study Part 2 (5 min) Note: you should have at least one person from each of the Part 1 groups. Use their different perspectives as you continue working through the case study. Be prepared to share you thoughts with the larger group. Overview Assignment F Department Chair informs the Dean and arranges for an Inquiry Committee Breakout Room 1 G & H Inquiry report reviewed and full misconduct investigation arranged. Dr. Grey dismisses Dunbar, retracts all of the papers co-authored by Dunbar, and informs all of the institutes he had recommended Dunbar for. Breakout Room 2 I & J Investigation Committee appointed, interviews Dunbar, and finds evidence of research misconduct and questionable research practices. No further punishment is perused. Dunbar leaves the research field. Breakout Room 3

Discussion: (10 min) Part F: Describe what the Chair was instructed to do and what he did. Was the team make up appropriate? Why? Part G & H: What happens to Dunbar? Do you agree that only Dunbar should be investigated? Did Dr. Grey do the proper/warranted thing in dismissing Dunbar, retracting/withdrawing all of his papers, and contacting all of the places he applied to? Part I & J: Describe how Dunbar responds during his interview and what the results of the investigation is. What do you think of the make up of the investigating committee? Is But I didn t know a valid excuse? Were the end result appropriate? Should Dunbar be punished?