180 likes | 267 Views
Explore the phenomena of research misconduct and the various ways in which research or professionalism can go awry, including plagiarism, fraud, and misuse of resources. Understand the factors contributing to these behaviors and why ethical research practices matter for academic progress and funding. Gain insights into the history and current standards in research integrity, along with steps to take if misconduct is suspected. Join the RCR Workshop on March 14 for a comprehensive discussion led by Cindy Rankin, Ph.D., Research Integrity Officer at the Dept. of Physiology, University of Arizona.
E N D
Research EthicsBlack & white … & the large gray area in-between Cindy Rankin, Ph.D. Dept of Physiology Physiological Sciences GIDP Research Integrity Officer
Ways in which research or professionalism goes awry • Plagiarism • Sloppiness/bad recording keeping • Fabrication • Fraud • Misuse/abuse of human/animal subjects • Misuse of funds/materials/environment • Authorship/responsibility RCR Workshop March 14
Why research/professionalism goes awry • Greed • Career advancement/pressures • Ignorance • Disconnection from project: • Lack of motivation, connection or responsibility • Lack of faith in project • Jealousy • Revenge • Mistake or carelessness RCR Workshop March 14
Why does it matter? RCR Workshop March 14
Why does it matter? • Progress in knowledge depends on: • Honesty • Fairness • Accuracy • Respect RCR Workshop March 14
Why else does it matter? RCR Workshop March 14
Research also brings in considerable funding…. Figure 2: Total Research Funding • Provides 1 Support for: • Research • Faculty • Students • Educational activities • Facilities/infrastructure • Services RCR Workshop March 14
Research also brings in considerable funding…. Figure 2: Total Research Funding • Provides 1 Support for: • Research • Faculty • Students • Educational activities • Facilities/infrastructure • Services But only if done well! RCR Workshop March 14
A bit of History • Science & scientific professionals presumed intrinsically ‘good’ • Self – corrections will address problems • “Norms” passed on via training RCR Workshop March 14
History cont. • In 1980’s Congress got involved • Substantial use of public money (pie) RCR Workshop March 14
Federal sources predominate RCR Workshop March 14
History cont. • In 1980’s Congress got involved • Substantial use of public money • Responsibility & accountability needed • Subcommittee findings • More than anticipated • Need standards and protocols RCR Workshop March 14
History cont. - • Development of definitions for NIH • Fabrication:making up data or results & recording or reporting them • Falsification:manipulating research or scholarship materials, equipment or processes, changing or omitting data such that not accurately represented • Plagiarism:appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results or words with out giving appropriate credit. RCR Workshop March 14
Beyond ‘FFP’ • ALSO – not to be tolerated: • Other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the academic community for proposing, conducting or reporting research. • Removed from official definitions as of 2000 RCR Workshop March 14
What to do if you suspect?? • Clarify or document • Discuss, if possible • Contact: • Mentor or dept chair • RIO – 621-3104 • Hotline – 866-364-1908 • Ombudsman program - 626-5589 • VPR office, Grad college - 621-3513 RCR Workshop March 14
What happens next? • Pre-Inquiry (initial investigation) • confidential and documentary • Inquiry • Decision • No misconduct • Misconduct found • Proof, significant departure, intent • affects funding, publications, career RCR Workshop March 14
Questions???? • Feel free to contact me Cindy Rankin, Ph.D. Dept of Physiology Physiological Sciences 621-3104 crankin@u.arizona.edu RCR Workshop March 14