A summary of On Being a Scientist: A Guide To Responsible Conduct In Research by the National Academy of Science, National Academy of Engineering and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies

Nicholas M. Synovic

02-01-2023 - 14 minutes read - 2936 words

A summary of On Being a Scientist: A Guide To Responsible Conduct In Research

Written by the National Academy of Science, National Academy of Engineering and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies

A summary of On Being a Scientist: A Guide To Responsible Conduct In Research

Chapter Summaries

Chapter specific summaries

The National Academies Advisors to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine

The National Academy of Science (NAS) (created in 1863) is a private, non-profit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars that are required to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters.

The National Academy of Engineers (NAE) (created in 1964) is a parallel organization to NAS that also advises the federal government.

The Institute of Medicine (created in 1970) is a subsidiary of NAS aimed at advising the government about public health policy matters.

The National Research Council was created in 1916 to broadly advise on research matters. It is now the primary concern of both NAS and NAE.

Preface

Science is built upon trust. When trust is misplaced and professional standards are violated, researchers feel attacked and that the base of their profession has been undermined.

Many new researchers are not learning about how to conduct themselves as scientists (a broad definition that includes anyone who is involved with the pursuit of knowledge). This task used to be placed on more senior researchers. However, as the speed of scientific developments, this task is often placed on the back burner. Furthermore, exciting opportunities keep appearing faster than science can keep up, further contributing to the problem of not educating new researchers on best practices.

Senior researchers have a special responsibility of upholding and promulgating high standards in science. They should be role models, teachers, and mentors to junior researchers.

A Note on Using On Being a Scientist

This book explores options for handling situations, not defining what exactly to do in a particular situation. This book should be read by a group of researchers that discuss the topics within and figure out how to apply the lessons to their practice.

The material within this book is not exhaustive, and many texts and websites now exist to help supplement this material.

The existence of professional standards implies that there is a proper way to go about a task or field. However, this book doesn’t aim to cover specifics. To address specific concerns, a committee consisting of a diverse group of individuals from varying experience levels should be formed to identify and discuss what is the professional standards. Furthermore, if your professional has an established code of conduct or professional standards, those should be referred to for specifics.

Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research

Researchers pride themselves on observing or explaining phenomenon which haven’t been seen or explained previously. However, researchers are often under a great deal of personal and professional pressure. Failure to properly collect, report, or handle data, experiments, or papers can result in lost time, money, and respect.

Researchers have thus created professional standards over many centuries for many different fields. It is therefore expected that researchers will adhere to these standards.

Thus there is an obligation to honor the trust that their colleagues place in them and vice versa. Irresponsible actions of others could potentially undermine an entire field.

There is also an obligation for researchers to conduct themselves in a responsible manner or else face potentially permanent damage to their reputation.

Additionally, researchers have an obligation to the public. It is their results that effect public policy which affects everyone. Additionally, their results may have a butterfly effect that affects international peoples or policy.

A scientific standard is the application of the ethical values of honesty, fairness, objectivity, openness, trustworthiness, and respect for others.

Scientific misconduct is defined as, “fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing researcher, or in reporting research results,” by the US government.

Those that operate with scientific misconduct are said to work with questionable research practices.

The scientific standard proliferates throughout the entirety of science, but scientific practices (application of standards) differs from field to field.

Advising and Mentoring

It is often best to build a diverse community of mentors as not one person has the same experience, education, or background as another.

Being a mentor is not a one way street where the mentee only benefits. As a mentor, you experience the benefits of being exposed to new ideas, building a strong research program and collaboration network, and gain new friends plus respect from beginning researchers. However, mentors have influence over the start of a junior researcher’s career, and must therefore be careful not to abuse it. The main role of the mentor is to help the mentee move along a productive and successful career trajectory.

Mentees also have responsibilities towards their mentors. They need to develop clear expectations regarding meeting times and availability with their mentors, and need to seek out their mentors, rather than expect a mentor to be provided to them. For more information on this subject, please read Adviser, Teacher, Role Model, Friend: On Being a Mentor to Students in Science and Engineering by Philip A. Grififths [1].

Treatment of Data

Researchers who maliciously manipulate data to deceive others violate the basic values and accepted professional standards of science. In doing so they mislead colleagues, potentially impede progress in their field, undermine their own authority and trustworthiness, and they introduce misinformation into both the scientific record and the public sphere.

To ensure the integrity of science, researchers have developed and continually improve upon methods such as statistical tests of significance, double-blind trials, and proper survey phrasing ensured by the academic’s relevant Internal Review Board (IRB). Because it is paramount that the integrity of the work is valid, papers must include a description of the methodology used to generate the data. This is because if the methodology to generate the data is incorrect or not present, then the integrity of the data and the work can be called into question. Furthermore, this helps ensure the reproducibility of science.

New researchers are not trained on how to generate, share, store, and publish data. Additionally, new technologies to store, transmit, generate, and analyze data are constantly being created. Thus researchers face a dilemma of how to store data permanently so that it can be used in future works (either by themselves or with others). However, when academic works are released the data must be made available. If a researcher refuses to share the data, then they fail to maintain the standards of science.

Mistakes and Negligence

All science is susceptible to error. However, researchers have an obligation to be as accurate and as careful as possible both for their profession and the public.

To make progress, researchers must believe the works of other researchers. It is well known that by, “looking for an answer”, or believing that there exists an answer prior to running experiments, that researchers bias themselves to believe that something exists when it doesn’t. However, these inaccuracies and mistakes must be remedied in the scientific record as soon as they are identified so as to allow the continue proliferation of science.

Research Misconduct

Scientific misconduct, as defined by the U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy, defines it as, “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results”.

The specific definitions for fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP) are listed below (and taken from the text):

- Fabrication is "making up data or results."
- Falsification is "manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or
changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately
represented in the research record."
- Plagiarism is "the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes,
results, or words without giving appropriate credit."

Furthermore, misconduct actions significantly depart from accepted practices, that they were intended, or knowingly, or recklessly, and have to be proven by a preponderance of information. However, identifying the intent to deceive is difficult to do, as honest mistakes could also result in the same generated data. Thankfully, differences of opinion are not scientific misconduct.

To reduce scientific misconduct, co-authors should validate each others work, as well as have third parties review their results prior to publication.

Misconduct can set back individuals, institutions, and research fields. It can also draw the eye of the public and policy makers to make decisions that are negative for the progression of science.

Responding to Suspected Violations of Professional Standards

Science typically self-regulates itself. It is the research community that sets the standards and practices that researchers should follow. However, as it is self-regulating, confrontation does occur where results are questioned.

When raising these questions, retaliation can occur. However, this is prohibited by the laws do exist to prevent this.

All research institutions that receive federal funding must have methods to investigate and report misconduct. Anyone who is aware of misconduct must follow these procedures.

All scientists and research institutions should discourage questionable research practices (QRPs). Additionally, they need to take responsibility in determining what QRPs warren reprimands from the institution. However, not all fields define QRPs the same. The act of salami-publishing (deliberately dividing research results across multiple papers) is viewed differently from field to field.

To raise suspicions, ask neutral questions rather than be accusatory. Another option is to talk to a friend or advisor who can keep the situation confidential. While this won’t necessarily result in changes, this will at least structure your thinking in what to do next. Another option is to talk to the research integrity officer who must be appointed if the institution receives federal funding. However, keep in mind your own motivations and biases prior to raising questions so as to be courteous and kind.

Human Participants and Animal Subjects in Research

Any research done on humans or animals is subject to federal, state, local, and institutional regulations.

The U.S. federal regulations on experiments that involve humans is known as the Common Rule. The Common Rule specifies exactly what falls under the domain of human participation in experiments. Furthermore, any research institution receiving federal grants must have an IRB. The job of the IRB is to ensure that all research involving human participants follows the Common Rule. Many private institutions also have IRBs.

In some cases where human participation is required, formal training in bioethics is needed to identify if the experiment is ethical towards the participants. These issues are often evaluated by the committee’s such as the President’s Council on Bioethics in the United States.

Animals also have federal protections with regard to animal participation in experiments. The U.S. federal Animal Welfare Act seeks, “to insure that animals intended for use in research facilities … are provided humane care and treatment.” The U.S. Public Health Service’s Policy on the Human Care and Use of Laboratory Animals applies to all research supported by the National Institute of Health (NIH). This requires institutions, “to establish and maintain proper measures to ensure the appropriate care and use of all animals involved in research, research training, and biological testing.” The policy requires adherence to both the Animal Welfare Act and NIH’s continually updated Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. This requires that all animal testing follows the three R’s:

- Reduction in the number of animals used,
- Refinement of techniques and procedures to reduce pain and distress,
- Replacement of conscious living higher animals with insentient material

Overseeing the ethical experimentation on animals is an institution’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs).

Laboratory Safety in Research

Researchers should review safety information and procedures at least once a year.

A shortlist of topics to review includes:

- Appropriate usage of protective equipment and clothing,
- Safe handling of materials in laboratories,
- Safe operation of equipment,
- Safe disposal of materials,
- Safety management and accountability,
- Hazard assessment processes,
- Safe transportation of materials between laboratories,
- Safe design of facilities,
- Emergency responses,
- Safety education of all personnel before entering the laboratory,
- Applicable government regulations

In the 17th century, researchers kept their results secret in order to protect their results from others claiming them. To solve this, Henry Oldenburg (the secretary for the Royal Society of London) started to guarantee that not only researchers could have their results rapidly published, but that the Royal Society would defend authors integrity. He furthermore invented the modern review practice of sending out manuscripts to experts prior to publication for review.

To publish in a peer-reviewed journal is often the most important way to share information among researchers. This is because the first to publish often gets the credit. Once results are published, others can cite the author in their work. Unpublished manuscripts under review are to be treated as confidential.

Citations need to be scrutinized during the peer-review process in order to assess their validity and usefulness. Researchers have a duty to thoroughly search the available literature on a subject and attribute all relevant authors.

Information can be disseminated through seminars, conferences, abstracts, and posters as well as peer-reviewed journal papers. Often considered to be preliminary in nature. Spreading data, results, or manuscripts that haven’t been peer-reviewed online is possible as well. However, by bypassing traditional quality assurance measures, researchers take on a risk that their work won’t serve science well.

Publishing or announcing results prior to peer-review is dangerous. Without the peer-review checks, it is possible for misinformation to be misinterpreted by the public, policy makers, and other researchers as fact. Additionally, by posting information prior to a journal submission online, it can be considered to be a “prior publication”, thus making it unusable for publishing within the journal.

Publication abuses are possible. For example, researchers may publish the “least publishable unit” of information. This is when the smallest number of results are collected or written about to be published, rather than undergoing an intensive research process. This wastes the time and energy of reviewers and can give the researcher a reputation of producing shoddy or incomplete work.

Authorship and the Allocation of Credit

When a paper is published, all of those that contributed to the paper are considered authors and should be listed as such. Authorship conventions and practices differ from field to field, and even lab to lab. Open and honest conversations about how authorship is handled is paramount to ensure that everyone knows the rules for the author list order.

Honorary authors (those that contributed zero to little actual content to the research) should not be added in the author list. They can be acknowledged in an “Acknowledgment” section however. Additionally, ghost-writers should not be used to write a paper.

All authors on a paper must take responsibility for the content of the paper and must be able to answer questions about the research.

Intellectual Property

Researchers should be aware of the potential monetary value that their intellectual property has. Intellectual property is a legal right to control the application of an idea within a specific context (through a patent) or control the expression of an idea (through a copyright).

- Patent owners can protect [their] intellectual property rights by excluding
others from making, using, or selling an invention so long as the patent owner
provides a full description of how the invention is made, is used, and
functions.

- Copyrights protect the expression or presentation of ideas, but they do not
protect the ideas themselves.

Most research institutions have policies that detail how intellectual policy rights should be handled. Additionally, patent and copyright laws differ from country to country. Publication of work should not be delayed because of a potential patent though.

Competing Interests, Commitments, and Values

Conflict of interest refers to situations where researchers have personal, intellectual, financial, and professional interests that conflict with the ongoing research. Conflicts of financial interests undergo much scrutiny. Should research be done with a known conflict of financial interest, it severely damages the researcher’s credibility and integrity.

Personal relationships can also conflict with research. Often journals and funding agencies ask for personal relationships in order to identify potential conflict of personal interests. Romantic relationships often count as a personal conflict of interest.

Timely and full disclosure of conflict of interests must be made to governing bodies of science when requested.

Conflicts of commitment are different than conflict of interests. This can cause significant strain on a researcher’s life and should be identified early.

The values that a researcher has can cause a conflict of interest as well. Religious, philosophical, cultural, or political beliefs can all cause conflicts of interests. Values cannot and should not be separated from science, but should be acknowledged and understood while conducting science.

The Researcher in Society

Researchers have the duty to ensure that not only does their work further science, but also improves the public’s welfare. They are put into an interesting situation within the public sphere and may have to wear many hats. However, it is paramount that they remain honest, fair, collegial, and open in society as these are all core scientific tenants that researchers should follow.