Research ethics
1 / 10

Research ethics - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Research ethics. Freedom , responsibility and universality if science. Freedom of movement , association, expression and communication for scientists Equitable access to data, information and research materials

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

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Research ethics' - kiri

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

Freedom responsibility and universality if science
Freedom, responsibility and universalityif science

  • Freedomofmovement, association, expression and communication for scientists

  • Equitable access to data, information and research materials

  • Responsibility for the research practicewithhonesty and integrity, methods and resultreportedaccurate, orderly, timely and open.

  • Impartial and fair in assessingotherworks

  • Respectful and considerateto human subjects and animals as well as environmental impact

Good research practice
Good research practice

  • Regulatory systems for scientists:

  • Laws, statutes, ordinances

  • Authorities´regulations an ddirectives

  • General consel

  • Conventions

  • Guidlines

  • Declarations, resolutions and statements

  • Recomendations, opinions and statements

  • Ethicscodes

Biologic research with animals
Biologic research with animals

Use laboratory animals?

Ethic problem: are animals ethical objects that needs protection in a moral sense? Are animals right-holders?

Intrinsic value vs instrumental value

Evaluations and comparsions between benefits for humans and distress for the laboratory animals

Publishing issues false good measures good measures
Publishing: Issues, false good measures &... good measures!

What goes wrong in the publishing system today?

  • “Publish or perish” publishing means: good scientific thought, job security, self-esteem etc...

  • Fashionscience: Things that are easier to publish than others, no matter the quality of the work. We have no power on the peer-reviewers.

  • Fight between personal interests and Science sake: Publish/Truth!

  • Build our thinking so that it would confirm our hypothesis or our results: no-logic!!

  • New ideas favored over confirmation and truth

Nosek, Spies & Motyl, Psychological Science, 2012

The measures that are taken are unsifficient
The measures that are taken are unsifficient

What are they? Why is that?

  • Conceptual replication: Interesting but cannot stand for a replication per se.

  • Self-correction: some evidence may one day infirm our hypothesis. But while nothing comes, our false-results may influence science... And when the truth comes out?

  • Negative-results journals: nobody want to publish there!

  • Ask journals to encourage negative-results: They prefer clean results, if you don't have, try next door

  • Peer-reviewing taking more care for false-results: they probably do. But: cannot see everything, and don't have access to everything!

Nosek, Spies & Motyl, Psychological Science, 2012

Right measures to make science more correct
Right measures to make science more correct?

  • What do the authors suggest?

  • What else could we think of?

Paradigm-driven studies

Challenging mindsets

Identify what we should replicate

Crowd-funded replication efforts

Journals focused on the logic

Lower publication barriers

Open data, open methods, open tools

Personal insights:

What about making consortia? Several labs together

May be we shall all take statistics courses!

Nosek, Spies & Motyl, Psychological Science, 2012

Charlantanry in fornsic speech science

Voice stress analyzer (VSA)

Microtremordetection in speech signal

Frequency of 10Hz in muscles on relxation

VSA measures microtremor in 20-40hz

Layered voice analyzer (LVA)

Applies 8000 mathematical algorithms on 129 voice frequencies

500 lines of Visual Basic code in the patent

No explanation on why certain values are correlated to emotional stress level

Analysis is done the same way for human speech as for car engine recording

Charlantanry in fornsic speech science

Research ethics

Financial and ethical effects based on usage of lie detectors

Bogus Pipeline Effect

Subject will answer more honestly if truth can be tested for accuracy.

14% vs 40% when lie detector was used. Information about use of VSA is important, actual use is irrelevant.

Police departments

Insurance companies

Security agencies


Should we accept that the insurance companies increase their profits by lying to their customers?

Is the use of lies acceptable if it makes a suspect confess?

Do we want councils to bring down social benefit costs by lying to their clients?

Do we want security systems in our airports that are based on decisions no more valid than throwing a pair of dice?

All lies? Scientists threatened with legal action over lie detector article

Francisco Lacerda, a professor of phonetics at Stockholm University, is one of two scientists threatened with legal action after the publication of a scientific article condemning the use of lie detectors. The Israeli company Nemesysco, which manufactures detectors, has written in a letter to the researchers' publishers that the researchers may be sued for libel if they continue to write on this subject in the future.

Trouble in the lab
Trouble in the lab

Only 6 out of 53 landmark studies in cancer research could be replicated - Amgen

Bater Healthcare replicated successfully 25% of 67 seminal studies

Statistical mistakes are widespread

Low statistical power in neuroscience, typically 0.21 Marjan Bakker

“There is no cost to getting things wrong” “The cost is not getting them published”Brian Nosek

PLoS ONE and Science Exchange

Reproducibility Initiative – scientists can pay to have their work validated by an independent lab

18-point checklist introduced by Nature

Negative results published 1990 30% and 14% in 2007

Budding scientists must be taught technical skills, including statistics, and must be imbued with skepticism towards their own results and those of others.

Researchers ought to be judged on the basis of the quality, not the quantity, of their work.

 “need to develop a value system where simply moving on from one’s mistakes without publicly acknowledging them severely damages, rather than protects, a scientific reputation.” 

Errorous paper about cancer research was accepted in 157 of 304 per reviwed papers - John Bohannon

Melissa Haendelfound > 50% of biomedical papers failed to identify all the resources necessary to reproduce the results.