And the British physicist and sociologist of science John Ziman, in an article synthesizing critiques of Merton's formulation, has specified a set of structural factors in the bureaucratic and corporate research environment that impede the realization of that particular set of norms: the proprietary nature of research, the local importance and funding of research, the authoritarian role of the research manager, commissioned research, and the required expertise in understanding how to use modern instruments (Ziman, 1990). There are a number of ethical principles that should be taken into account when performing undergraduate and master's level dissertation research. One mentor has written that his “research group is like an extended family or small tribe, dependent on one another, but led by the mentor, who acts as their consultant, critic, judge, advisor, and scientific father” (Cram, 1989, p. 1). In addition, incidents of plagiarism, the increasing number of authors per article in selected fields, and the methods by which publications are assessed in determining appointments and promotions have all increased concerns about the traditions and practices that have guided communication and publication. In such moments, the standards of proof may be quite different from those that apply at stages when confirmation and consensus are sought from peers. At the other is the more subtle “borrowing” of ideas, terms, or paraphrases, as described by Martin et al., “so that the result is a mosaic of other people's ideas and words, the writer's sole contribution being the cement to hold the pieces together.”20 The importance of recognition for one's intellectual abilities in science demands high standards of accuracy and diligence in ensuring appropriate recognition for the work of others. Using animals in experiments – research perspectives. A well-established discipline can also experience profound changes during periods of new conceptual insights. See, for example, Mayr (1982, 1988). See, for example, the discussion on random data audits in Institute of Medicine (1989a), pp. Scientists operate within a system designed for continuous testing, where corrections and new findings are announced in refereed scientific publications. The exchange of research data and reagents is ideally governed by principles of collegiality and reciprocity: scientists often distribute reagents with the hope that the recipient will reciprocate in the future, and some give materials out freely with no stipulations attached. Clearly, each scientist has a responsibility to foster an environment that en-. Many students come to respect and admire their mentors, who act as role models for their younger colleagues. Neither Merton nor other sociologists of science have provided solid empirical evidence for the degree of influence of these norms in a representative sample of scientists. See also Holton (1978). A hypothesis is a testable prediction that is arrived at logically from a theory.Several types of studies exist within the scientific method— experiments, descriptive studies, case studies, surveys, and non-descriptive studies. Academic institutions traditionally have relied on their faculty to ensure that appropriate scientific and disciplinary standards are maintained. Although some have proposed that these principles should be written down and formalized,2 the principles and traditions of science are, for the most part, conveyed to successive generations of scientists through example, discussion, and informal education. of scientists by demonstrating and discussing methods and practices that are not well understood. Other problems related to authorship include overspecialization, overemphasis on short-term projects, and the organization of research communication around the “least publishable unit.” In a research system that rewards quantity at the expense of quality and favors speed over attention to detail (the effects of “publish or perish”), scientists who wait until their research data are complete before releasing them for publication may be at a disadvantage. Not affiliated Unfortunately, individuals who exploit the mentorship relationship may be less visible. For example, NSF staff have commented, “Unless we can arrange real returns or incentives for the original investigator, either in financial support or in professional recognition, another researcher's request for sharing is likely to present itself as ‘hassle'—an unwelcome nuisance and diversion. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process: Volume I, 2 SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND RESEARCH PRACTICES, 4 MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCE - INCIDENCE AND SIGNIFICANCE, 5 HANDLING ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCE - INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSES AND EXPERIENCE, 6 STEPS TO ENCOURAGE RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH PRACTICES, A: BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF PANEL MEMBERS. Volume I examines reports on the incidence of misconduct in science and reviews institutional and governmental efforts to handle cases of misconduct. Formal rules or guidelines concerning their disposition are rare. In such situations, precise replication of the original result is commonly not attempted because of the lack of identical reagents, differences in experimental protocols, diverse experimental goals, or differences in personnel. It is clear that the specific influence of norms on the development of scientific research practices is simply not known and that further study of key determinants is required, both theoretically and empirically. In addition, more particular principles characteristic of specific scientific disciplines influence the methods of observation; the acquisition, storage, management, and sharing of data; the communication of scientific knowledge and information; and the training of younger scientists.1 How these principles are applied varies considerably among the several scientific disciplines, different research organizations, and individual investigators. The general norms of science emphasize the principle of openness. Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. In some cases, noncontributing authors have been listed without their consent, or even without their being told. The social setting of the research group is a strong and valuable characteristic of American science and education. Reviewers for journals or research agencies receive privileged information and must exert great care to avoid sharing such information with colleagues or allowing it to enter their own work prematurely. The basic and particular principles that guide scientific research practices exist primarily in an unwritten code of ethics. ... Research question must be capable of being … The standards and expectations for behavior exemplified by scientists who are highly regarded for their technical competence or creative insight may have greater influence than the standards of others. Such conclusions are sometimes overturned by the original investigator or by others when new insights from another study prompt a reexamination of older reported data. In some research fields, for example, concerns are being raised about how the increasing size and diverse composition of research groups affect the quality of the relationship between trainee and mentor. See, for example, Holton (1988) and Ravetz (1971). However, the NSF policy emphasizes “that retention of such rights does not reduce the responsibility of researchers and in-. Journal publication, traditionally an important means of sharing information and perspectives among scientists, is also a principal means of establishing a record of achievement in science. (1990). (1990). Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text. Register for a free account to start saving and receiving special member only perks. Steps of the Scientific Method - The scientific method has a similar structure to an hourglass - starting from general questions, narrowing down to focus on one specific aspect, then designing research where we can observe and analyze this aspect. The use of ideas or information obtained from peer review is not acceptable because the reviewer is in a privileged position. They have craved an understanding of the underlying order in the world.... Humanity’s deepest desire for knowledge is justification enough for our continuing quest. Although most scientific hypotheses are derived from prior research, some hypotheses arise from hunches and new ways of … For a full discussion of the roles of scientific societies in fostering responsible research practices, see the background paper prepared by Mark Frankel, “Professional Societies and Responsible Research Conduct,” in Volume II of this report. Accordingly, the panel emphasizes the following conclusions: The panel believes that the existing self-regulatory system in science is sound. Basic Principles of Research By Edmund Lawrence S. Florendo 2. A set of general norms are imbedded in the methods and the disciplines of science that guide individual, scientists in the organization and performance of their research efforts and that also provide a basis for nonscientists to understand and evaluate the performance of scientists. R. W. Hamming, The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics. Although editors cannot be held responsible for the errors or inaccuracies of papers that may appear in their journals, editors have obligations to consider criticism and evidence that might contradict the claims of an author and to facilitate publication of critical letters, errata, or retractions.21 Some institutions, including the National Library of Medicine and professional societies that represent editors of scientific journals, are exploring the development of standards relevant to these obligations (Bailar et al., 1990). The extent of participation in these four activities required for authorship varies across journals, disciplines, and research groups. Some scientific journals now require that full data for research papers be deposited in a centralized data bank before final publication. 5. The latter two have acquired more importance in recent times. Plagiarism is using the ideas or words of another person without giving appropriate credit. Institutional policies have been developed to guide data storage practices in some fields, often stimulated by desires to support the patenting of scientific results and to provide documentation for resolving disputes over patent claims. In the early stages of pioneering studies, particularly when fundamental hypotheses are subject to change, scientists must be free to use creative judgment in deciding which data are truly significant. 2. It is a violation of the most fundamental aspect of the scientific research process to set forth measurements that have not, in fact, been performed (fabrication) or to ignore or change relevant data that contradict the reported findings (falsification). are problems with several dimensions.18 Honorary authors reap an inflated list of publications incommensurate with their scientific contributions (Zen, 1988). selves were carefully and correctly performed. Upholding individuals' rights to confidentiality and privacy is a … Part of Springer Nature. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation of those facts. How should credit for technical or hardware contributions be acknowledged? Government agencies have developed specific rules and procedures that directly affect research practices in areas such as laboratory safety, the treatment of human and animal research subjects, and the use of toxic or potentially hazardous substances in research. Martin et al. Science encompasses a large body of evidence collected by repeated observations and experiments. In resolving competing claims, the interests of individual scientists and research institutions may not always coincide: researchers may be willing to exchange scientific data of possible economic significance without regard for financial or institutional implications, whereas their institutions may wish to establish intellectual property rights and obligations prior to any disclosure. At some level, all scientific reports, even those that mark profound advances, contain errors of fact or interpretation. 8-11. Peer review is the process by which editors and journals seek to be advised by knowledgeable colleagues about the quality and suitability of a manuscript for publication in a journal. Mission teams for space probes, oceanographic expeditions, and projects in high-energy physics, for example, all involve large numbers of senior scientists who depend on the long-term functioning of complex equipment. Although its goal is to approach true explanations as closely as possible, its investigators claim no final or permanent explanatory truths. In practice, scientists in the specialty do. You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Despite the potential moral issues raised by the latter advances, the history of science provides us faith that knowledge and understanding can be advanced for the benefit of humanity. In all of science, but with unequal emphasis in the several disciplines, inquiry proceeds based on observation and experimentation, the exercising of informed judgment, and the development of theory. The mentoring relationship may also combine elements of other relationships, such as parenting, coaching, and guildmastering. Editors may specify the. that govern authorship practices, ownership of intellectual property, and the giving of references and recommendations are exposed for professional—and even legal—scrutiny (Nelkin, 1984; Weil and Snapper, 1989). A mentor, as a research advisor, is generally expected to supervise the work of the trainee and ensure that the trainee's research is completed in a sound, honest, and timely manner. This is called the scientific method. Commonsense views, ideologies, and anecdotes will not support a conclusive appraisal. Responsible Science is a provocative examination of the role of educational efforts; research guidelines; and the contributions of individual scientists, mentors, and institutional officials in encouraging responsible research practices. Individuals in positions of authority are visible and are also influential in determining funding and other support for the career paths of their associates and students. To the extent that the behavior of senior scientists conforms with general expectations for appropriate scientific and disciplinary practice, the research system is coherent and mutually reinforcing. But there is uncertainty about the extent to which individual scientists adhere to such norms. The same report examined obstacles to data sharing, which include the criticism or competition that might be stimulated by data sharing; technical barriers that may impede the exchange of computer-readable data; lack of documentation of data sets; and the considerable costs of documentation, duplication, and transfer of data. But policies and procedures adopted by some government research agencies to address misconduct in science (see Chapter 5) represent a significant new regulatory development in the relationships between research institutions and government sponsors. This topic, in particular, could benefit from further research and systematic discussion to clarify the rights and responsibilities of research investigators, institutions, and sponsors. Experiments with animals, CC BY 2.0 (Rosenfeld Media) Several ethical frameworks also govern the use of animals in research. Provides students and researchers with an easy-to-understand introduction to the fundamentals of scientific research. Laboratories concerned with patents usually have very strict rules concerning data storage and note keeping, often requiring that notes be recorded in an indelible form and be countersigned by an authorized person each day. Another problem of lesser importance, except to the scientists involved, is the order of authors listed on a paper. As members of a professional group, scientists share a set of common values, aspirations, training, and work experiences. Scientists traditionally describe the methods used for an experiment, along with appropriate calibrations, instrument types, the number of repeated measurements, and particular conditions that may have led to the omission of some datain the reported version. The panel defined a mentor as that person directly responsible for the professional development of a research trainee.25 Professional development includes both technical training, such as instruction in the methods of scientific research (e.g., research design, instrument use, and selection of research questions and data), and socialization in basic research practices (e.g., authorship practices and sharing of research data). For example, in physics the ordering of authors is frequently alphabetical, whereas in the social sciences and other fields, the ordering reflects a descending order of contribution to the described research. This is one reason for scientists and research institutions to clarify and strengthen the methods by which they foster responsible research practices. Adherence to scientific principles and disciplinary standards is at the root of a vital and productive research environment. Much has been made of the concept that science is “self-correcting”—that errors, whether honest or products of misconduct, will be exposed in future experiments because scientific truth is founded on the principle that results must be verifiable and reproducible. In some cases, well-meaning senior scientists may grant junior colleagues. In these moments, when scientists must cope with shifting concepts, the matter of what counts as scientific evidence can be subject to dispute. © 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG. Definition of research Research: a detailed study of a subject in order to discover new information or new fact or reach a new understanding. Previous studies uncovered important properties of the internal structure of teams, but little attention has been paid to their most basic property: size. This practice seems to.have been abandoned for reasons that are not well understood. More commonly, a somewhat different version of the original experiment, or a revised interpretation of the original result, is published as part of a subsequent report that extends in other ways the initial work. But this situation operates only under conditions of freely available information and unconstrained choice —conditions that usually do not exist in academic research groups. © 2020 National Academy of Sciences. In situations where both kinds of influence exist, it is particularly important for scientists to be forthcoming about possible sources of bias in the interpretation of research results. Some scientists have requested or been given authorship as a form of recognition of their status or influence rather than their intellectual contribution. of the importance of giving credit to the accomplishments of others are the same. At the core, these ethical principles stress the need to (a) do good (known as beneficence) and (b) do no harm (known as non-malfeasance). Although research publications continue to document research findings, the appearance of electronic publications and other information technologies heralds change. G. E. Box, W. G. Hunter, and J. S. Hunter. Other stipulations include that the material not be passed on to third parties without prior authorization, that the material not be used for proprietary research, or that the donor receive prepublication copies of research publications derived from the material. economy; guidance, principles and facilities of optimization of scientific research; preparation of facts, which documenting results of research scientific work (scientific report, article, talk, theses, etc.) Not a MyNAP member yet? A number of special issues, not addressed by the panel, are associated with computer modeling, simulation, and other approaches that are becoming more prevalent in the research environment. Some questions about communication and publication that arise from large science projects such as the Superconducting Super Collider include: Who decides when an experiment is ready to be published? The result of a two-year study by a panel of experts convened by the National Academy of Sciences, this book critically analyzes the impact of today's research environment on the traditional checks and balances that foster integrity in science. The role of individuals in influencing research practices can vary by research field, institution, or time. 5. Many laboratories customarily store primary data for a set period (often 3 to 5 years) after they are initially collected. Journals also may require or encourage their authors to deposit reagents and sequence and crystallographic data into appropriate databases or storage facilities.22. Most research institutions do not have explicit programs of instruction and discussion to foster responsible research practices, but the communication of values and traditions is critical to fostering responsible research practices and detering misconduct in science. Junior researchers have raised concerns about treatment of their contributions when research papers are prepared and submitted, particularly if they are attempting to secure promotions or independent research funding or if they have left the original project. Much greater complexity is encountered when an investigator in one research group is unable to confirm the published findings of another. Much of the discussion on mentorship is derived from a background paper prepared for the panel by David Guston. The disciplines have traditionally provided the vital connections between scientific knowledge and its social organization. In an experiment a researcher manipulates certain variables and measures thei… Some institutions, such as Harvard Medical School, have responded to these problems by limiting the number of publications reviewed for promotion. The particular points raised are statistical ("The smaller the studies conducted in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true" and "The greater the flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.") Moreover, if centralized systems are perceived by scientists as an inappropriate or ineffective form of management or oversight of individual research groups, they simply may not work in an academic environment. But modifications are necessary to foster integrity in a changing research environment, to handle cases of misconduct in science, and to discourage questionable research practices. In the last decade, the methods by which research scientists handle, store, and provide access to research data have received increased scrutiny, owing to conflicts, over ownership, such as those described by Nelkin (1984); advances in the methods and technologies that are used to collect, retain, and share data; and the costs of data storage. This is a preview of subscription content. Some research institutions, scientific societies, and journals have established policies to discourage questionable practices, but there is not yet a consensus on how to treat violations of these policies.11 Furthermore, there is concern that some questionable practices may be encouraged or stimulated by other institutional factors.