In the Classroom
Issues in Scientific Integrity: A Practical Course for Graduate Students in the Chemical Sciences J. Howard Rytting and Richard L. Schowen* Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045
The Need for Courses on Scientific Conduct The popular (1) and professional (2–4) press currently feature vivid treatments of cases of scientific misconduct and call for educational remedies, and books (5) continue to be published on the subject. Instruction in the ethics of professional conduct has long been a part of the pharmacy and medical curricula, but in the basic sciences—and the chemical sciences in particular—the need for such instruction has come to general notice only recently. Only within the last few years, the National Institutes of Health has mandated formal instruction for predoctoral trainees that, at the least, leaves them informed about procedures surrounding scientific-misconduct regulations in their institutions. At the University of Kansas, we developed a semester-long, one-credit course. It addresses, in a practical way, issues in scientific integrity as they arise in the daily lives of working scientists. The Design of “Issues in Scientific Integrity” Our course is entitled “Issues in Scientific Integrity”. It has been our purpose to avoid two major pitfalls that appeared likely to stand in the way of efforts in this area. To avoid neglecting the discipline of ethics, leaving the impression that ethical conduct is merely a matter of personal principle, we included a presentation by a professional ethicist. We were also concerned not to make the course abstract and unrelated to ethical problems in daily scientific life. To avoid this difficulty, we have stressed the involvement of basic-science faculty members who have had to confront some of the ethical dimensions of the field in the course of fulfilling their professional responsibilities.
Topical Organization of the Course and Qualifications of the Instructors Chart 1 shows the general organization of the course by topics covered. Issues in Scientific Integrity is organized into eight topical sections, which are dealt with in about 13 or 14 meetings during the semester (about one meeting weekly). Section 1 introduces the philosophical discipline of ethics and relates it to professional ethics in general and to issues that may directly be faced by basic scientists in their careers (1 meeting). Sections 2 through 5 address ethical issues in the experience of scientists in the course of their scientific work. These cover the scientist in the laboratory (2–3 meetings); as a reviewer of the work of others (2 meetings); as an author of scientific papers (3 meetings); and as a grantee (2 meetings). Section 6 treats problems in which there is a distinction between the power individuals have over each other (particularly in employer–employee and teacher–student relationships) and what ethical rights and responsibilities these relationships imply (1 meeting). Section 7 treats scientists in their inter*Corresponding author.
action with the public (1 meeting). Section 8 introduces students to issues in the regulation of scientific conduct by government and institutional bodies and provides them with specific knowledge of the rules and procedures of our university (1 meeting). The second column of Chart 1 indicates the qualifications of the faculty members selected to conduct each of the sessions. An ethicist from the Department of Philosophy has introduced the philosophical discipline of ethics in the initial session, and a member of the Research Office of the university has presented local and national regulations on scientific misconduct in the final session. Other participants in our course have been chosen in part on the basis of conditions prevailing at the University of Kansas, but it should be possible at most research universities to assemble a similar group. In other institutions, the same purpose may be served by calling on members of local communities or neighboring institutions. Persons who direct university research centers or industrial visitors can give especially useful examples of the importance of exact record-keeping. Faculty members with editorial experience can comment effectively on problems of publishing and reviewing manuscripts, and those with experience in government granting agencies can give a useful perspective on grant reviewing and administration. Persons who have served on institutional review boards can knowledgeably lead discussions on questions of animal use and human experimentation.
Content of the Individual Topic Sections The third column of Chart 1 gives greater detail on the subtopics we thought it important to address within each of the topical sections. Generally, much was left to the discretion of the individual presenters, but one of the instructors responsible for the course was present at every meeting and made sure either that the discussion addressed each of the main subtopics or that these were otherwise dealt with during the course. In essentially every session, at least half the time was devoted to discussion. The five videotapes made available by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (6 ) have been shown and have served as effective springboards for classroom discussions. Some General Issues Addressed Several themes recurred during the discussion of a number of different topics, and these merit separate mention. Among them were the following. Assumed Honesty of Scientists as Scientists. All participants agreed that the very fabric of science depends on the trustworthiness of all scientists, since every scientist has the right to use the results of any other scientist and the duty to use the relevant work of other scientists. Thus it was not the purpose of Issues in Scientific Integrity to exhort the students to be honest in their scientific work. Since they had all chosen
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 75 No. 10 October 1998 • Journal of Chemical Education
1317
1318
Qualifications of Instructors for the Section
Professional qualifications in the field of ethics; typically a member of the Department of Philosophy.
Unusual experience in the conduct and direction of research; staff members of special research centers with responsibility for research records; industrial scientists with experience and responsibility for good laboratory practices and good manufacturing practices.
Unusual experience with the review of grant applications through service on government or other panels; editorial experience in the review of manuscripts.
Editorial experience in the publication of manuscripts; unusual and long experience in the publication of research papers.
Experience with grant administration through service with government or other agencies, with large and complex grants, or with university grants administration.
Experience with or unusual knowledge of problems that arise in situations of power differentials; e.g., experts in psychosocial problems in this area, or staff of an affirmative action office.
Experience and knowledge in the interaction of scientists with the public and public bodies.
Knowledge of, experience with, and responsibility for the regulation of scientific conduct and application of government and institutional rules.
Topical Section
Nature of Ethics
The Scientist in the Laboratory
Scientist as Reviewer
Scientist as Author
Scientist as Grantee
Scientist as Employer/Employee and Teacher/Student
Scientist as Citizen
Regulation of Scientific Conduct
Approaches by government agencies, professional organizations, and institutions to governing ethical behavior in research and addressing charges of misconduct; local regulations and procedures for handling misconduct.
The interaction of scientists in their professional roles with governmental or other public bodies, with the mass media, and with lay members of the public. Care in establishing areas of competence; avoidance of conflicts of interest; rigorous accuracy in the portrayal of scientific issues in general language.
Situations of divided responsibility and unequal distribution of power. Informed consent and conflict of interest; racial, gender and other discrimination and harassment; affirmative-action practices; fair and appropriate recognition of contributions.
Obtaining, administering and using financial support for the conduct of research, including fiscal accountability; conflicts of interest in receiving and expending funds; ethical practices with human subjects including informed consent; ethical use of animals; maintenance of accurate records; rigor and caution in preparing grant applications; rigor and caution in reporting to granting agencies.
The reporting of research, including evaluation of data; rigorous interpretation and reporting of sources and magnitudes of probable errors; appropriate recognition of alternative interpretations; fair evaluation of the roles of individuals in collaborative research and appropriate assignment of authorship; ethical recognition and citation of previous work; avoidance of plagiarism; obtaining permission where appropriate in the use of the work of others; avoidance of multiple publication and submission.
The evaluation of the work of others, particularly in the peer review of manuscripts for publication and of grant applications, including conflicts of interest; proper handling of confidential documents and information; avoiding incompetent reviewing; timeliness and comprehensiveness in providing reviews; the use and abuse of anonymity.
Responsible and careful design of experiments; rigorous observation of good laboratory practices in the conduct of experiments; exact, rigorous, comprehensive record-keeping; care in the storage and maintenance of original data in a form accessible to others; maintenance and storage of research materials; regular report writing.
The nature of the philosophical discipline of ethics and the role of ethical principles in regulating practical behavior among scientists.
Subjects Covered in the Section
Chart 1. Topical Organization and Content of "Issues in Scientific Integrity"
In the Classroom
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 75 No. 10 October 1998 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
In the Classroom
scientific careers and were aware of the obligations of all scientists to conduct and present their work honestly, we assumed from the beginning that they were all honest. The purpose of the course was to (i) increase students’ awareness of issues connected with scientific conduct and misconduct so that they could participate effectively in the ongoing discussion of these issues; (ii) increase their awareness of the legitimate ethical expectations that other scientists and the public have of scientists, so that they will not accidentally engage in conduct that will come under suspicion of impropriety; (iii) inform them fully on professional, national, and local regulations governing scientific misconduct so that they can make known suspected violations to the appropriate bodies. The Pathology of Scientific Misconduct. Repeated discussions occurred of the fact that the fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism of scientific findings, as opposed to dishonesty in other aspects of life, is intrinsically irrational. Dishonesty in nonscientific areas can conceivably be the rational outcome of a cost–benefit analysis. However, in science a dishonest publication must concern either an entirely trivial matter (then others will ignore it and the dishonest scientist will escape detection but will gain nothing because the publication is ignored) or instead an important matter (in which case other scientists will take up the work and use it, and the fraud will be immediately exposed). Thus scientific misconduct can never be the result of a rational decision. Discussions brought out a number of illustrations of this point in particular cases of scientific misconduct. Among the motivations noted for irrational behavior were pressure to produce definite results by a certain deadline, and an unreasonable confidence on the part of experimenters about the likely outcome of experiments for which they “had no time”. Clean-Underwear Policy. In view of the basic honesty of the enormous majority of scientists and the pathological character of misconduct, how can a truly ethical scientist avoid falling unjustly under the suspicion of misconduct? The “clean-underwear policy” (based on the proverbial parent’s advice to always wear clean underwear when leaving the house: if one should become an accident victim, no embarrassment will ensue) presents a solution. (This metaphor is exceedingly undignified and we would be grateful to readers for an equally powerful but more elevated example.) Thus, in cases of doubt, always choose the course of behavior you would admit to with greater ease and pride if “everything were to come out”. Class discussions developed a number of examples of application of the principle from the personal experience of students and instructors. These included the use of statistical tests to decide which data can be omitted but also describing in the publication the omitted data and the nature of the test; crossing out incorrect entries in a research notebook, but never removing them, instead adding an explanation, accompanied by the date it was added, of the reason for crossing them out. Courtesy, Collegiality, and Ethics. Class discussions developed the point that the deep importance of ethical conduct in science implies a corresponding obligation not to cheapen the status of ethical conduct by confusing it with undesirable behavior that is not in fact unethical. Such undesirable behavior includes impolite and uncollegial discourse, in person or in print, which can extend to the most repellent rudeness without infringing any ethical rule. If one wishes to protest such behavior (whether it has been directed against
oneself or another), it is obligatory not to label it as scientific misconduct. Examples that emerged in the discussion included the ethical neutrality of referring to an important earlier paper without acknowledging its importance (rudeness), as opposed to ascribing errors to an earlier paper that it in fact does not contain (misconduct). Legitimate Error versus Scientific Misconduct. Much discussion revolved around the distinction between being misled by a misinterpretation of one’s own results or by other misconceptions into making a scientific error, as opposed to the deliberate publication of results and ideas one knows to be wrong. Legitimate error and its correction were acknowledged as an engine of scientific progress, whereas falsification or fabrication is antithetical to scientific progress. Historicity, Logical Presentation, and Honesty. Discussions of the writing of publications and grant applications presented the opportunity to address another matter that beginning scientists sometimes find troublesome. This is the distinction between a literal, historical (“warts and all”) account of one’s work and a logical scientific presentation. Scientific custom and respect for the economy of the reader’s time (and patience) dictate that scientific reports be organized and presented in logical rather than strictly historical form. At the same time, untruths should never be employed in such a presentation, including untruths that cannot readily be checked by the reader. Thus a publication can legitimately omit the complex series of experimental mistakes and conceptual misinterpretations that may have preceded a serendipitous discovery. It should not, however, untruthfully state that the authors were led to their discovery by a carefully designed procedure. Maintenance of Quality Issues in Scientific Integrity has been presented at Kansas three times (the fall semesters of 1993, 1995, and 1997), with the two authors of this paper assuming joint responsibility for the overall course. The course is listed in three departments of the School of Pharmacy, where it is required for the Ph.D. degree, and in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. Every faculty member who was asked to participate agreed to do so, and there is a waiting list of several faculty members interested in participating. We ascribe the enthusiasm with which our colleagues have agreed to participate and the faithfulness with which they have carried out their obligations to a general recognition of the importance of the course.
Student Opinion and Assessment Procedures Toward the end of each course, the student assessment customary at the University of Kansas was administered. Students provide overall summaries of their views of the course and its characteristics, and statements of changes that should be made. General satisfaction has usually been indicated. In addition, the level of student discussion and participation during the class meetings has been high and the interest obvious. We believe that our emphasis on practical matters has been crucial in the good reception of the course by the students. Assignment of Grades Issues in Scientific Integrity is a one-credit graduate course at the University of Kansas. To receive a grade, students must attend every session and prepare a brief paper. The paper
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 75 No. 10 October 1998 • Journal of Chemical Education
1319
In the Classroom
addresses a current case involving scientific integrity where the technical issues are biomedical or in the chemical sciences (often, although not necessarily, a case of scientific misconduct). The paper summarizes the technical issues and ethical issues and comments on these from the perspective of the course. The instructors assign a grade on the basis of the paper and the student’s attendance. Acknowledgments
2. 3. 4. 5.
We are happy to thank the colleagues from the University of Kansas and elsewhere who have taught in Issues in Scientific Integrity, the students who have participated, and the National Institute of General Medical Sciences and National Cancer Institute, who support predoctoral training grants (GM 07775, GM 08359, GM 08545, and CA 09242) in the chemical sciences at Kansas. Literature Cited 1. See for example the account by Daniel Kevles in the The New Yorker (1996, 82[May 27], 94–109) of the affair involving David Baltimore, Thereza Imanishi-Kari, and Margot O’Toole; the com-
1320
6.
mentary by Pamela Zurer in Chem. Eng. News (1996, 74[June 24], 31); and related accounts in Chem. Eng. News (1996, 74[July 1], 6) and elsewhere of this and similar matters (Wadman, M. Nature 1996, 381, 639; Steele, F. Nature 1996, 381, 719–720; Rubner, J. Nature 1996, 382, 104). Lapidus, J. B.; Mishkin, B. Am. J. Pharmaceut. Educ. 1994, 58, 333–338. Pollock, R. E.; Currey, S. A.; Lotzona, E. Acad. Med. 1994, 69, 876–879. Coppola, B. P.; Smith, D. H. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 33–34. Useful examples include Scientific Integrity: An Introductory Text with Cases; Macrina, F. L., Ed.; ASM: Washington, DC, 1995. Research Ethics: Cases and Materials; Penslar, R. L., Ed.; Indiana University Press: Bloomington, 1995. Ethical Issues in Scientific Research; Erwin, E.; Gendin, S.; Kleiman, L., Eds.; Garland: New York & London, 1994. Shrader-Frechette, K. Ethics of Scientific Research; Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham, MD, 1994. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine; Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1992 (Vol. I) and 1993 (Vol. II). Research Fraud in the Behavioral and Biomedical Sciences; Miller, D. J.; Hersen, M., Eds.; Wiley: New York, 1992. Integrity in Scientific Research: Five Video Vignettes; AAAS Directorate for Science and Policy Program, 1200 New York Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20005.
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 75 No. 10 October 1998 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
