Being a successful scientist: the importance of responsible conduct

Nancy Ip Hong Kong University of & Emilie Marcus Cell Press Guoqiang Bi University of Science & Technology of China Susan Amara University of Pittsburgh Why is Responsible Conduct Important in Science?

Science, in general: Î Ensures respect is maintained when working with humans and animals Î Ensures data can be trusted by key decision makers as many key public policies are based on scientific data Î Ensures trust and support from society, and credibility for the , as a whole

z Technological in this day and age is advancing at breakneck speed. It is up to scientists to wield new tools in an ethical manner within the bounds of social morality and in the interests of humanity Why is Responsible Conduct Important in Science?

Individuals: Î Establishes credibility ─ essential for a successful career as a scientific researcher Î Honest reporting builds trust among peers and within scientific communities Î Encourages openness, data-sharing, co-operation, and collaboration Core Areas For Ethical Conduct Office of Integrity ORI

─ ORI (Dept of Health and Human Services in the US) emphasizes bolstering through education on research integrity and responsible conduct of research

1. Data acquisition management, sharing, and ownership 2. Mentor-Trainee relationships 3. Publication practices and responsible authorship 4. Peer-review 5. Collaborative science 6. Human/ Animal subjects 7. Research misconduct 8. and commitment Why Do Researchers Commit Scientific Misconduct?

Career pressure (“”) Î Competition for positions/ promotions: institutions review a scientist’s publication record for a job or promotion Î Competition for funding: a strong publication record in high impact-factor journals assures of continuous funding support Î Pressure to out-do peers (race to publish first) Prospect of wealth, fame, recognition, or other forms of perceived success (e.g. financial rewards for highly prolific researchers) may lead to conflict of interest, manipulation of data, etc. Î Ethical research conducted for the advancement of truth and knowledge must always be separated from personal motives and incentives Why Do Researchers Commit Scientific Misconduct?

Ease of misinterpretation Î Ambiguous results from “noise” or extraneous data may cause a researcher to misinterpret the results to fit a hypothesis Î Ethical science MUST be objective; without Laziness Î “Borrowing” from another’s work without conducting any themselves Frustration Guidelines on and Responsible Conduct z Since its inception, the Society for Neuroscience (SfN) has developed policies and guidelines for those engaged in the communication of research. z Through ongoing efforts, SfN established policies on: Î Responsible conduct in scientific communication Î Responsible conduct in the use of humans/ animals Î Dealing with allegations of misconduct z SfN continually updates its guidelines based on current trends and practices z In 2008, SfN established the Responsible Conduct Working Group (RCWG) as the existing guidelines were deemed insufficient to meet current needs Composition of the RCWG RCWG, a volunteer group, is comprised of leading scientists from eminent academic institutions

z David Van Essen (Chair, Washington University, St. Louis) z Christopher Henderson (Columbia University) z Nancy Ip (HKUST) z Sabine Kastner (Princeton University) z Peggy Mason (University of Chicago) z John Maunsell (Harvard University) z Jeffrey Rothstein (Johns Hopkins University) z Gordon Shepherd (Yale University) z Michael Zigmond (University of Pittsburgh) RCWG: Mission and Aims z Mission: Î To review and recommend changes to existing SfN guidelines Î To create a single policy to oversee issues related to responsible conduct in scientific communication z Aims: ÎTo identify areas not covered by existing guidelines ÎTo address the following issues:

z Increasing number (and complexity) of cases of scientific misconduct

z Issues related to digital data and the use of the Internet

z Sharing of reagents, resources, and data

z Inadequate awareness of current guidelines and policies RCWG: Action Plan z Review existing policy components and determined which would be: included, modified, or deleted z Review existing procedures – both written and those in practice z Discuss inadequacy and limitations of current procedures, and revise these accordingly z Develop set of recommendations based on current trends and practices and revise policies to reflect real- world scenarios RCWG: Outcome z Revised guidelines entitled “Responsible Conduct Regarding Scientific Communication” is culmination of a 2-year team effort composed of face-to-face meetings, conference calls, and emails z Revised guidelines were approved by the Council of the Society for Neuroscience on 20 July 2010 z Revised guidelines now drive SfN’s ethics and publishing policies z Provided to the Chinese Academy of as reference “Responsible Conduct Regarding Scientific Communication” z The guidelines are split into the following sections: 1. Authors of Scientific Communications

Î Detailed guidelines for authors of scientific publications

Î Specifically pertains to data (validity, originality, etc), and the manner in which it is obtained especially if human/ animal subjects are used

Î Authorship based on substantial intellectual contribution 2. Reviewers of Manuscripts

Î Journal reviewers are obligated to remain fair and impartial when reviewing manuscripts, keeping all information confidential at all times; thorough & timely

Î Guidelines also aim to protect reviewers’ anonymity unless a reviewer requests disclosure “Responsible Conduct Regarding Scientific Communication”

3. Editors of Scientific Journals

Î Editors of SfN publications are obligated to review, and accept/reject manuscripts with minimal bias

Î Editors must always provide authors with a written rationale for editorial decisions 4. Communications Outside the

Î Researchers are encouraged to communicate their results to the lay public. However, care must be taken to ensure accuracy, and release of data to public domain must not substitute publishing in peer- reviewed journals Ethics as a Shared Responsibility z General:

Î Science is conducted interactively and collaboratively by a community of scientists Î Scientific community bears burden of acting responsibly to ensure the integrity of science Î All within the community are obligated to identify and stamp out any unethical behaviour or / misuse of the system Î Scientific community must also uphold responsibility of training the next generation of scientists in the of scientific practice (as much as the actual knowledge and skills) Ethics as a Shared Responsibility z Ethics is obligatory for researchers, institutions, journal reviewers, and publication committees Î Researchers MUST adhere to strict ethics guidelines. Any suspicion of misconduct must be reported to the proper authorities Î Institutions engaged in research MUST have effective procedures for dealing with scientific misconduct and mistreatment of animals/humans Î Journal reviewers MUST ensure data in journals they review make sense Î Editors MUST ensure that publication decisions are fair Î Publication committees MUST undertake every allegation of misconduct seriously but fairly, and those deemed guilty must serve the consequences Handling Allegations of Misconduct

from John Maunsell Handling Allegations of Misconduct

from John Maunsell