Scientific Misconduct
Download
1 / 38

Scientific Misconduct - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 124 Views
  • Uploaded on

Scientific Misconduct. Overview. Types of Fraud Detecting Fraud Motives How Common is Fraud? The Stem Cell Mess Reforms. Types of Fraud. Types of Fraud. Business As Usual Bootlegging Research Rushing to Publish Withholding Data Withholding Information

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Scientific Misconduct' - anemone


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

Scientific misconduct 1347406

Overview

Types of Fraud

Detecting Fraud

Motives

How Common is Fraud?

The Stem Cell Mess

Reforms



Scientific misconduct 1347406

Types of Fraud

Business As Usual

Bootlegging Research

Rushing to Publish

Withholding Data

Withholding Information

Unfair Treatment of Post-Docs & Students

- The Most Common Allegation.


Scientific misconduct 1347406

Types of Fraud

Misdemeanors

Improper Credit to Colleagues

Improper Credit to Collaborators

Re-Publishing Content

- Smallest Publishable Unit

Plagiarism

Unethical Use of Peer Review


Scientific misconduct 1347406

Types of Fraud

Felonies

Misrepresenting Results

- “Cooking”: Retaining Results that Fit the Data

- Clark Milliken

- “Trimming”: Adjusting Data to Make it Look Extremely Accurate

- “Forging”: Fabricating Data or Entire Experiments



Scientific misconduct 1347406

Honest Mistakes

Physics, The Easiest Case

A Crisis in Physics?

Replicability

Experiments are Hard!

Short-range gravity

Yale Axion (1985)

Stanford Monopole (1982)

Stanford Fractionally Charged Particles (1970s)

Los Alamos Sterile Neutrinos (1995)

17 KeV Neutrino (1990s)



Scientific misconduct 1347406

Honest Mistakes

Systematic Error

Identifying Sources of Error

Within Experiments

Between Successive Experiments


Scientific misconduct 1347406

Honest Mistakes

Subjective Error

What They Teach Experimentalists

Luis Alvarez

Self-Delusion vs. Self-Doubt

Getting Experiments to Work

Lowell and Mars (1890s)

Maskelyn & Kinnebrook (1796)

N-Rays (1903)


Scientific misconduct 1347406

Honest Mistakes

Subjective Error

Finding What’s Expected

Newton

Cowen & Reines

Characterizing the Data

Double Blind Solutions

The Trade-Offs

Parity Violation in the 1920s

Efficiency


Scientific misconduct 1347406

Honest Mistakes

Is Science Self-Correcting?

Why Replicate?

Time, Unpleasantness, Making Enemies

Rocking the Boat

Fear of Senior People

Reluctance to Hurt Junior People

Litigation


Scientific misconduct 1347406

Honest Mistakes

Beyond Physics

The Role of Theory

The Undetectable Middle

Not Expected, Not Spectacular

Reproducibility

Piltdown, Hideo Noguchi,

Cyril Burt


Scientific misconduct 1347406

Honest Mistakes

Beyond Physics, ctd…

Team Culture

Social Forces

Competition & Flux

Commerce


Scientific misconduct 1347406

Detecting Fraud

Catching Fraud

Uri Geller and the Physicists

Planning for Rare Events

The Intent Problem

Do We Need a Smoking Gun?

Statistical “Proofs”

Bad/Missing Data

Better That Nine Guilty Men Go Free…?



Scientific misconduct 1347406

How Common is Fraud?

Office of Research Integrity

1 inquiry per 60 grants

1 misconduct finding per 500 grants

127 Complaints (2001)

Fabrication (35)

Falsification (40)

Plagiarism (20)


Scientific misconduct 1347406

How Common is Fraud?

New Scientist Survey

One-third of all scientists

were directly or indirectly

aware of cheating.

40% were caught or confessed

Only 10% of cheaters were fired.



Scientific misconduct 1347406

Motives

Junior People

Imposters

Resume Builders

Students & Young Faculty

Employees


Scientific misconduct 1347406

High Flyers

Woo Suk Hwan

Victor Ninov

Jan Hendrik Schon


Scientific misconduct 1347406

High Flyers

The Faustian Bargain

The Incentives Model

Slippery Slopes

Psychiatric explanations

Betting on Being Right

Being First

Winning Arguments

Talking to Der Alte: Newton & Burt


Scientific misconduct 1347406

High Flyers

Power

Cyril Burt

Vishwajit Gupta


Scientific misconduct 1347406

Hoaxers

The Human Urge to Hoax

Piltdown

Crop Circles

Big Results

Element 118

Archaeopteryx

Small Results

Do The Data Exist?



Scientific misconduct 1347406

Stem Cell

Woo Suk Hwang

Did clone human blastocysts.

Did clone puppy.

But:

Egg donations from lab workers

Efficiency of cloning

Creating Cell line from blastocysts

Forging samples.

Forging data.

Forging photos.

Paying team members to keep quiet?

Hwang’s Defense

Protecting womens’ privacy.

Stem cells were deliberately swapped…

Mess


Scientific misconduct 1347406

Stem Cell

Mess

The Fraud Unravels

Anonymous tipster

Investigative reporters

Find the duplicate photos…

The US Connection – Gerald Schatten

$40K in 15 months

Lobbying Science to publish.

Becoming a co-author.

Failure to oversee manuscript.

Failure to ensure that all 25 coauthors approved.



Scientific misconduct 1347406

Reforms

Time and Money

Serendipity

Contaminating the Literature

Vishwajit Gupta

Political Capital


Scientific misconduct 1347406

Reforms

Self-Regulation

Incremental Reforms

Training

Record Keeping

Utility and Overhead

Co-Author Responsibilities

Expanding the Required Conspiracy


Scientific misconduct 1347406

Reforms

Discipline

US Approach:

“Reasonably Unambiguous

and Unacceptable Across

all Scientific and Scholarly

Disciplines.”


Scientific misconduct 1347406

Reforms

Office of Research Integrity:

9 month process – usually committee- based

33% report matter was not kept confidential because of inquiry’s duration and/or leaks.

Only 25% believed university did enough to restore their reputations.


Scientific misconduct 1347406

Reforms

Consequences to Individuals:

Short Term: loss of position (17%),

loss of promotions or salary (42%),

threatened lawsuits, additional

allegations, ostracism, reduced support,

delays in publication and grants,

pressure to admit misconduct.

Two-thirds reported that effects

continued after the investigation.


Scientific misconduct 1347406

Reforms

Long-Term Consequences to Individuals

39% reported long-term consequences

and/or a continuing stigma.

94% continued research

and 71% stayed at same institution.


Scientific misconduct 1347406

Reforms

Long-Term Consequences to Individuals

Impact on professional reputation (46%)

job mobility (30%), networking (24%),

presenting papers (39%), research (37%),

chairing sessions (30%), serving in elected

offices (28%), mental health (78%),

physical health (48%), self-esteem (46%),

self-identity (39%), relations

with spouse (37%).


Scientific misconduct 1347406

Reforms

Consequences

Hurting The Accused

Hurting the Judges

Shifting Workers Out of Research

Facilitating Vendettas

Judicializing Science

Suppressing Unexpected Results

Politicizing Science


Scientific misconduct 1347406

Reforms

Danish Committees of Scientific Discovery

Bjorn Lomborg (2003)

“Objective Dishonesty”

Anders Moller (1998-2003)

Personalities & Revenge

Missing and reconstructed data

Is an incorrect calculation fraud?