Hi, Two more cents.
Make sure to read the article by Bob Montgomerie and Tim Birkhead, 2005. A beginner's guide to scientific misconduct. ISBE Newsletter. 17:16-24. You can find the pdf at http://web.unbc.ca/isbe/newsletter/commentaries&editorials/Montgomerie&Birkhead_vol17(1).pdf In the lastes issue of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology (ISBE) there is another interesting article by Anders Pape Møller, unfortunately is not in pdf format yet, but as soon it gets in I will post it. cheers Morty Ortega Natural Resources University of Connecticut On 10/29/05, wenlong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > He are my two cents: > > If you check out New York Times on Oct 28, there is a news about a > professor in MIT got fired because of misconduct in scientific research. > > or go to > http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/10/28/mit_profe > ssor_is_fired_over_fabricated_data/ > > Another thing that I want to point out is that some professors only want > to see good results and that makes students fabricate or falsify research > results only in order to get him/her pleased. I have heard student friends > complain that previous students made fake results and graduated and became > faculty elsewhere, then a new student came along, and he/she had to > reproduce the previous "good' results to continue the research. While he > couldn't repeat the results and the professor would think he is stupid, and > he wasted a lot of time. So it's quite hard for the new student to continue, > should he also falsify and make "good" results? The answer is NO, but I > think professors should also listen to students on producing results. If > he/she couldn't repeat results well enough and you know that he/she is not > lazy and stupid, you probably have to take a second thought and accept the > fact and find out what's going on. This is especially important for Famous > professors who only think that his/her previous students did great > job,,,,and blame the new students being stupid and lazy. > > Wen > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wendee Holtcamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 3:04 PM > Subject: questionable research practices > > > > I want to get a dialogue going about scientific misconduct vs = > > "questionable research practices" and your opinions as scientists on = > > these issues - and whistleblowing comes into this. In this era where it = > > seems the government and policymakers routinely ignore science, how does = > > one know what science to trust? If you're a whisteblower and you got = > > fired from a private industry (where there is little protection) about a = > > scientific integrity issue, email me offlist for an article I'm working = > > on. > > > > Is there any kind of consensus in the general academic and scientific = > > community about ethics in scientific research, such as official = > > statements by major science organizations like AAAS, AIBS, NAS, or even = > > ESA. I've done some searching and what I've found is very scattered.=20 > > > > If you're a professor - when you are hired do you ever get told or = > > taught about the standards of ethics and integrity in research of your = > > institution?=20 > > > > So the question becomes - if the organization the scientists work for = > > turn the other cheek but there is public money involved, who holds them = > > accountable? The media? Other scientists?=20 > > > > I have been doing some searching and there is apparently a difference = > > between scientific misconduct/fraud and "questionable research = > > practices".=20 > > > > According to a 1992 letter by the National Academy of Sciences at = > > http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/POD500?OpenDocument = > > misconduct includes "fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in = > > proposing, performing, or reporting research" while questionable = > > research practices are actions "that violate traditional values" of = > > scientific research but fall short of misconduct. They may, for example, = > > include failing to retain significant research data for a reasonable = > > period; using inappropriate statistical methods of measurement; = > > presenting speculations as fact; or bypassing peer review before = > > presenting results, especially in public forums. > > > > I ask all of you as scientists out there - what do YOU consider = > > scientific misconduct and what do you consider "questionable"? If you = > > know that (1) your being funded by public dollars and (2) your results = > > have policy implications that will affect millions of people - and yet = > > you still use weak statistical analysis that you were advised against - = > > is this misconduct or would this be accepted by peers? =20 > > > > At one point do you go to the public? Does it affect a lawsuit if you go = > > public?=20 > > > > I am interested in anyone and everyone's thoughts on these issues.=20 > > > > This is for a couple of things - one an article I'm writing where a = > > couple of "questionable research practices" have come up - further = > > investigation may show them to be actual misconduct but the case for the = > > practices being questionable research is strong.=20 > > > > Wendee > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Wendee Holtcamp, M.S. ~ LOGOS Communications=20 > > Freelance Writer-Photographer ~~ http://www.wendeeholtcamp.com > > Bohemian Adventures Blog ~~ http://bohemianadventures.blogspot.com > > 281-798-8417 ~ ~ [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Better to light a candle than curse the darkness - Chinese proverb >
