ChE 2982 Engineering Ethics Instructor: Götz Veser Lecture V: COI, Authorship, Life as Grad...

ChE 2982ChE 2982

Engineering Ethics

Instructor: Götz Veser

Lecture V:

COI, Authorship, Life as Grad

Student…

Conflict of InterestConflict of Interest

“A conflict of interest is a situation in which someone in a position of trust, such as a lawyer, insurance adjuster, a politician, executive or director of a corporation or a medical research scientist or physician, has competing professional or personal interests. Such competing interests can make it difficult to fulfill his or her duties impartially.

A conflict of interest exists even if no unethical or improper act results from it. A conflict of interest can create an appearance of impropriety that can undermine confidence in the person, profession, or court system. A conflict can be mitigated by third party verification or third party evaluation noted below—but it still exists.”

(Source: Wikipedia.)

Conflict of Interest: FinancialConflict of Interest: Financial

• Sponsored Research

• Spin-off companies by

university researchers

• Any form of financial interest

in the research outcome

(stock owned in business or business sector etc)

• This can be indirect, i.e. financial interest by a (close)

family member, rather than yourself. (Problem: define

“close”…)

Conflict of Interest: ScientificConflict of Interest: Scientific

• Reviewing privileged information (manuscripts, proposals) – by competitors

– by close collaborators

– by a friend or relative

• Difficulty: you may be one of the few experts to judge the work!

Conflict of Interest: PersonalConflict of Interest: Personal

• Should therapists, such as psychiatrists, be allowed to have

extraprofessional relations with patients? Ex-patients?

• Should a faculty member be allowed to have an

extraprofessional relationship with a student, and should

that depend on whether the student is in a class of, or

being advised by, the faculty member?

COI – from Pitt ORICOI – from Pitt ORI

• There are some circumstances in which conflicts of interest could compromise the integrity of research or even lead to research misconduct […]. The annual disclosures of outside interests by researchers required under the University's Conflict of Interest Policy and the review of these disclosures by academic administrators are intended to avoid the escalation of conflicts into improper behavior or misconduct.

• Possible preventive measures provided under that policy include – divestiture, – public disclosure of outside interests, – reduction of the conflicted researcher’s role in the research, and – internal monitoring of the research within the University.

• A notice of conflicting financial interests should be included, possibly as a footnote, in publications, in research proposals and reports, and in clinical research protocols. Many journals and funding agencies require such disclosures.

• A faculty member should also disclose to research students and members of the research staff the existence of his or her financial interests in activities related to the research.

Monitoring COI…Monitoring COI…

COI – from Pitt ORI, Cont’dCOI – from Pitt ORI, Cont’d

• The author(s) of a commercially sponsored study report must have access to all the data underlying a publication, including data from all sites in a multi-site study, and must have full control over the decision to publish. University researchers should not allow their names to be used as “ghost” authors of manuscripts written by commercial sponsors.

• Conflict of commitment must be avoided so as not to threaten a University researcher’s primary professional allegiance and responsibility to the University. Although outside activities occupying no more than one day a week may be allowed for faculty (but not staff) members, the approval of each such activity from the academic supervisor must be obtained in advance. In no case are University facilities to be used in the conduct of an outside activity, and the University name and logo may be used by outside entities only with permission of designated University business officers.

Conflict of Interest: ExampleConflict of Interest: Example

A CONFLICT OF INTEREST

John, a third-year graduate student, is participating in a department-wide seminar where students, postdocs, and faculty members discuss work in progress. An assistant professor prefaces her comments by saying that the work she is about to discuss is sponsored by both a federal grant and a biotechnology firm for which she consults. In the course of the talk John realizes that he has been working on a technique that could make a major contribution to the work being discussed. But his faculty advisor consults for a different, and competing, biotechnology firm.

1. How should John participate in this seminar?

2. What, if anything, should he say to his advisor-and when?

Industrial Sponsorship: ExampleIndustrial Sponsorship: Example

INDUSTRIAL SPONSORSHIP OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH

Sandra was excited about being accepted as a graduate student in the laboratory of Dr. Frederick, a leading scholar in the field, and she embarked on her assigned research project eagerly. But after a few months she began to have misgivings. Though part of Dr. Frederick's work was supported by federal grants, the project on which she was working was totally supported by a grant from a single company. She had known this before coming to the lab and had not thought it would be a problem. But she had not known that Dr. Frederick also had a major consulting agreement with the company. She also heard from other graduate students that when it came time to publish her work, any paper would be subject to review by the company to determine if any of her work was patentable.

1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of Sandra doing research sponsored entirely by a single company?

2. How can she address the specific misgivings she has about her research?

Allocation of CreditAllocation of Credit

• Science is not an individual experience. It is shared knowledge. For that reason, the social conventions of science play an important role in establishing the reliability of scientific knowledge. If these conventions are disrupted, the quality of science can suffer.

• Many scientists are generous in discussing their preliminary theories or results with colleagues, and some even provide copies of raw data to others prior to public disclosure. But scientists are not expected to make their data and thinking available to others at all times. During the initial stages of research, a scientist deserves a period of privacy in which data are not subject to disclosure. This privacy allows individuals to advance their work to the point at which they have confidence both in its accuracy and its meaning.

• Publication in a peer-reviewed journal remains the standard means of disseminating scientific results, but other methods of communication are altering how scientists divulge and receive information. Posters, abstracts, lectures at professional gatherings, and proceedings volumes are being used more often to present preliminary results before full review. Preprints and computer networks are increasing the ease and speed of scientific communications.

Allocation of CreditAllocation of Credit

• The importance of publication in journals accounts for the convention that the first to publish a view or finding, not the first to discover it, tends to get most of the credit for the discovery.

• Once results are published, they can be freely used by other researchers to extend knowledge. But until the results become common knowledge, people who use them are obliged to recognize the discoverer through citations.

Allocation of Credit: ExampleAllocation of Credit: Example

Ben, a third-year graduate student, had been working on a research project that involved an important new experimental technique. For a national meeting in his discipline, Ben wrote an abstract and gave a brief presentation that mentioned the new technique. After his presentation, he was surprised and pleased when Dr. Freeman, a leading researcher from another university, engaged him in an extended conversation. Dr. Freeman asked Ben extensively about the new technique, and Ben described it fully. Ben's own faculty advisor encouraged his students not to keep secrets from other researchers, and Ben was flattered by Dr. Freeman’s interest in his work.

Six months later Ben was leafing through a journal when he noticed an article by Dr. Freeman. The article described an experiment that clearly depended on the technique that Ben had developed. He didn't mind; in fact, he was flattered that his technique had so strongly influenced Dr. Freeman's work. But when he turned to the citations, expecting to see a reference to his abstract or presentation, his name was nowhere to be found.

1. Does Ben have any way of receiving credit for his work?

2. Should he contact Dr. Freeman in an effort to have his work recognized?

3. Is Ben's faculty advisor mistaken in encouraging his students to be open about their work?

Allocation of Credit: Real Life ExampleAllocation of Credit: Real Life Example

Postdoc Peter Schwartz and Prof. Chad Mirkin

(Northwestern U.) Postdoc attempted to publish paper in Langmuir without

supervisor

Please read: D. Curry. (2001) Chronicle of Higher Education. June 4. URL:

http://chronicle.com/daily/2001/06/2001060404n.htm

See also: http://www.newtimes-slo.com/archives/cov_stories_2001/cov_08162001.html

Coverage in ‘Science’ magazine (see course webpage).

http://chronicle.com/daily/2001/06/2001060404n.htm

http://www.newtimes-slo.com/archives/cov_stories_2001/cov_08162001.html

Allocation of Credit: Example, cont’dAllocation of Credit: Example, cont’d

The stories draws focus on two main issues: May a junior researcher publish findings without the permission of his or her senior professor? And if so, what are the implications for future intellectual property rights?

For Leonard Minsky, executive director of the National Coalition for Universities in the Public Interest, Schwartz’s case highlights how big corporate money and […] the Baye-Dole Act of 1980 have forced university scientists to become entrepreneur-scientists. Adding financial incentives to science has created incentives for bad (or even outright fraudulent) science, and can work to suppress, rather than disseminate, scientific truths.

The Baye-Dole Act of 1980 is significant because it allowed ownership of federally-sponsored inventions to be taken from the public, and sold to corporations. Because Schwartz’s invention could potentially be worth a lot of money, and because the work he did refuting Mirkin’s claims could also cost Northwestern’s lab (and Mirkin’s two start-up companies) lost revenue, it’s easy to see why efforts to stop Schwartz from publishing his work have been vigorous, Minsky says.

Mirkin has a much different claim. He has said in letters and interviews that the reason Schwartz’s work should not be published is two-fold: the science is not complete, and, if and when it is, Schwartz would hardly be the sole author, but one of many who worked on the project. He claims Schwartz is a rogue–a young and irresponsible scientist trying to claim others’ work as his own. Mirkin has also said that no one in his lab has reproduced Schwartz’s results.

(Source: http://www.newtimes-slo.com/archives/cov_stories_2001/cov_08162001.html)

Guidelines for Publication…Guidelines for Publication…From: https://paragon.acs.org/paragon/ShowDocServlet?contentId=paragon/module_content/

registration/ethical_guidelines/ethic2000.pdf

1. An author’s central obligation is to present an accurate account of the research performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance.

2. An author should recognize that journal space is a precious resource created at considerable cost. An author therefore has an obligation to use it wisely and economically.

3. A primary research report should contain sufficient detail and reference to public sources of information to permit the author’s peers to repeat the work. […].

4. An author should cite those publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work and that will guide the reader quickly to the earlier work that is essential for understanding the present investigation. […].

5. Any unusual hazards inherent in the chemicals, equipment, or procedures used in an investigation should be clearly identified in a manuscript reporting the work.

6. Fragmentation of research reports should be avoided. A scientist who has done extensive work on a system or group of related systems should organize publication so that each report gives a well-rounded account of a particular aspect of the general study. […].

7. In submitting a manuscript for publication, an author should inform the editor of related manuscripts that the author has under editorial consideration or in press. […].

Guidelines for Publication…Guidelines for Publication…From: https://paragon.acs.org/paragon/ShowDocServlet?contentId=paragon/module_content/


8. It is improper for an author to submit manuscripts describing essentially the same research to more than one journal of primary publication […]. It is generally permissible to submit a manuscript for a full paper expanding on a previously published brief preliminary account (a “communication” or “letter”) of the same work. […]

9. An author should identify the source of all information quoted or offered, except that which is common knowledge.[…].

10. An experimental or theoretical study may sometimes justify criticism, even severe criticism, of the work of another scientist. When appropriate, such criticism may be offered in published papers. However, in no case is personal criticism considered to be appropriate.

11. The co-authors of a paper should be all those persons who have made significant scientific contributions to the work reported and who share responsibility and accountability for the results. Other contributions should be indicated in a footnote or an “Acknowledgments” section. [...] The submitting author should have sent each living co-author a draft copy of the manuscript and have obtained the co-author’s assent to co-authorship of it.

12. The authors should reveal to the editor any potential conflict of interest, e.g., a consulting or financial interest in a company, that might be affected by publication of the results contained in a manuscript. […]

Authorship (Pitt ORI)Authorship (Pitt ORI)

• Publication of research results is important as a means of communicating to the scholarly world so that readers may be informed of research results and other researchers may build on the reported findings. In fact, it is an ethical obligation for an investigator at the University to make research findings accessible […].

• The reported data and methods should be sufficiently detailed so that other researchers could attempt to replicate the results. Publication should be timely but should not be hastened unduly if premature publication involves a risk of not subjecting all results to adequate internal confirmation or of not considering adequately all possible interpretations.

• A sponsor of a research project may not have a veto over a decision to publish, but a delay of publication for an agreed period, not to exceed six months, may be allowed in order to permit filing of a patent application.

• A group of journal editors, acknowledging the potential abuse of published information by perpetrators of bioterrorist acts, have suggested that on occasion the potential harm to society of publication outweighs the potential societal benefits of open publication of research results. Editors should be consulted about procedures that might be employed in such cases, such as modifying or withholding publication.

Publication: The Author ListPublication: The Author List

Authorship - CriteriaAuthorship - Criteria

• Publication must give appropriate credit to all authors for their roles in the research. If more than one person contributes significantly, the decision of which names are to be listed as co-authors should reflect the relative contributions of various participants in the research.

• Many professional associations and research journals have specified criteria for authorship. One common standard […] is that each author should have participated in

– formulating the research problem,

– interpreting the results, and

– writing the research paper, and

– should be prepared to defend the publication against criticisms.

Other statements require meeting two or three of the above criteria and, with respect to the last of these requirements, a more limited expectation is often prescribed - that each author should be prepared to defend against criticism those portions of the publication falling within his or her particular area of expertise.

Authorship - CriteriaAuthorship - Criteria

• A person's name should not be listed as author without his or her knowledge, permission, and review of the final version of the manuscript, which includes the names of all co-authors. A procedure that has been adopted by some journals and some universities or departments is that each author must sign a statement attesting to having read and approved the final manuscript and/or to having made a substantial contribution to the manuscript. […]

• A person whose contribution merits co-authorship should be named even in oral presentations […]. The entitlement to authorship should be the same whether or not a person is still at the original location of the research when a paper is submitted for publication.

• […] one should avoid the listing of so-called honorary authors, who do not meet the criteria for authorship. Many published versions of standards for authorship suggest the use of alternative forms of acknowledgment within the paper for contributions that do not merit co-authorship, e.g., for technical assistance, for providing research materials or facilities, or for meeting some but not all of the stated criteria for authorship.

• To avoid misunderstandings and even recriminations, the inclusion and exclusion of names of research participants as co-authors should be made clear to all participants in the research prior to submission of the manuscript.

Authorship - Order of AuthorsAuthorship - Order of Authors

• Customs regarding the order in which co-authors' names appear vary with the discipline. Whatever the discipline, it is important that all co-authors understand the basis for assigning an order of names and agree in advance to the assignments.

• A corresponding, or senior, author (usually the first or last of the listed names in a multi-authored manuscript) should be designated for every paper, who will be responsible for communicating with the publisher and for informing all co-authors of the status of review and publication and of any changes in the list of co-authors and who will ensure that all listed authors have approved the submitted version of the manuscript. This person has a greater responsibility than other co-authors to vouch for the integrity of the research report and should make every effort to understand and defend every element of the reported research, even though this may be challenging when the report depends on data generated by co-authors using technical methods in which the senior or corresponding author has no or limited expertise, or when the report depends on observations made by a co-author that cannot readily be replicated (e.g., a rare molecular interaction or an astronomical event that occurs for an instant, not to be repeated for many years).

Author ResponsibilitiesAuthor Responsibilities

Correspondence to:

Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to D.F.E. (Email: [email protected]).

Author Contributions

D.F.E., A.M.D., P.D.P.P., D.R.C. and B.A.J.P. designed the study and obtained financial support.

D.G.B. and D.R.C. directed the genotyping of stages 1 and 2.

D.F.E. and D.T. conducted the statistical analysis.

K.A.P. and A.M.D. coordinated the genotyping for stage 3 and the fine-scale mapping of the FGFR2 and TNRC9 loci.

J.P.S. and J.Z. performed resequencing and analysis of the FGFR2 locus.

K.A.P., S.A., C.S.H., R.B., C.A.H., L.K.K., B.E.H., L.L.M., P.B., S.S., V.G., F.O., C-Y. S., P-E.W. and H-C.W. conducted genotyping for the fine-scale mapping.

R.L., J.M., H.F. and K.B.M. provided bioinformatics support.

D.E., D.G.E., J.P., O.F., N.J., S.S., M.R.S. and N.R. coordinated the studies used in stage 1.

N.W. and N.E.D. coordinated the EPIC study used in stages 1 and 2.

The remaining authors coordinated the studies in stage 3 and undertook genotyping in those studies.

D.F.E. drafted the manuscript, with substantial contributions from K.A.P., A.M.D., P.D.P.P. and B.A.J.P.

All authors contributed to the final paper.

mailto:[email protected]

Publishing Outside Scientific LiteraturePublishing Outside Scientific Literature

• A scientist publishing in the popular literature has the same basic obligation to be accurate in reporting observations and unbiased in interpreting them as when publishing in a scientific journal.

• Inasmuch as laymen may not understand scientific terminology, the scientist may find it necessary to use common words of lesser precision to increase public comprehension. In view of the importance of scientists’ communicating with the general public, some loss of accuracy in that sense can be condoned. The scientist should, however, strive to keep public writing, remarks, and interviews as accurate as possible consistent with effective communication.

• A scientist should not proclaim a discovery to the public unless the experimental, statistical, or theoretical support for it is of strength sufficient to warrant publication in the scientific literature. An account of the experimental work and results that support a public pronouncement should be submitted as quickly as possible for publication in a scientific journal. Scientists should, however, be aware that disclosure of research results in the public press or in an electronic database or bulletin board might be considered by a journal editor as equivalent to a preliminary communication in the scientific literature.

From: https://paragon.acs.org/paragon/ShowDocServlet?contentId=paragon/module_content/


Real Life Example: Cold FusionReal Life Example: Cold Fusion

• On 23 March 1989 two electrochemists, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, grabbed the world's attention by announcing at a press conference in Salt Lake City, Utah, that they had observed controlled nuclear fusion in a glass jar. The excess heat measured in the experiment offered the promise of a new power source for the planet, as well as huge financial rewards. A couple of palladium electrodes in heavy water and any high-school kid could do it, it was said.

• Pons, in the chemistry department at the University of Utah, and his mentor Martin Fleischmann, of Southampton University in the UK, claimed at the press conference in 1989 that they had fused deuterium nuclei using routine electrochemical techniques on their lab bench. This was a huge claim to make - nuclear fusion had been thought possible only at temperatures in excess of a million degrees, when nuclei could overcome Coulomb repulsion. The only cold fusion that had been detected until then was the kind mediated by muons, seen in accelerator experiments in the 1950s, and then only at minuscule rates.

(Source: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/1258)

Fallout from the Press ConferenceFallout from the Press Conference

After the initial excitement over cold fusion was followed by the realization that there had not been a major breakthrough, there was much discussion about the role of refereed journal articles and the use of the press. There were some feelings that the need for refereed journals had been substantiated. Daniel Koshland Jr. stated with regard to cold fusion, "The first lesson is that the merit in the established scientific procedure of exposing ones's findings to peer review before publicizing results is reaffirmed.“

Others felt that refereed journals had been proven obsolete. One librarian stated, “Scholarly journals are obsolete as the primary vehicle for scholarly communication. The recent furor over ‘’cold fusion’, for example, developed entirely outside the scholarly journal process.”

There are several demands and requirements inherent in publishing in a peer review journal. The research is going to be reviewed by scientists who will analyze and judge the quality of the science and the methodology. According to John Maddox, […] " . . . referees can be relied upon almost without question to draw attention to control experiments that should have been carried out . . . “ Also, it is expected that the article will contain a full methodology section.

A story that appears in the press has different characteristics reflecting the requirements of that media. The (popular) press holds primary that the story be of a certain magnitude of importance and that the information be of a timely nature. The work of Pons and Fleischmann met these expectations.

(Source: “The Cold Fusion Story: A Case Study Illustrating the Communication and Information Seeking Behavior of Scientists”, V. Welborn, Hayworth press, 1991)

Some More ‘Fallout’…Some More ‘Fallout’…

• What do you think about Koonin’s remarks?

• Are they justified in substance / in style?

• Do guidelines for scientific conduct need to be adhered to when dealing with people who have not followed those guidelines themselves?

Dr. Steven E. Koonin of Caltech called the Utah report a result of "the incompetence and delusion of Pons and Fleischmann."

The audience of scientists sat in stunned silence for a moment before bursting into applause.

A More Detailed Timeline…A More Detailed Timeline…

• In 1986 Steven Jones from BYU also began work with cold fusion. In the fall of 1988 he put together his ideas for a paper reporting on his research. In September he was asked to review the grant proposal from Pons/Fleischmann. Jones saw a possible collaboration with mutual benefits and contacted Pons/Fleischmann. In February of 1989 Pons and Fleischmann met with Jones. Discussions on joint publication were held but no decisions were made.

• Pons & Fleischmann wanted to continue their research quietly for about 18 months, and asked Jones if he would postpone reporting his result. Jones informed his colleagues from Utah that he had submitted an abstract for the American Physical Society conference to be held in May and he still planned to honor that commitment. He was willing, however, to cancel a colloquium scheduled two days from the meeting and one of his graduate students canceled a talk at a research conference.

• On March 6 the Presidents of University of Utah and Brigham Young University met to discuss the issues of collaboration and publication. It was agreed that the two teams would meet at the airport at Salt Lake City on March 24 and mail their papers simultaneously.

• In early March the U.S. editor of the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry and Interfacial Electrochemistry called Pons on a personal matter. The conversation turned to cold fusion, and the editor said he could get an article through the peer process rapidly." On March 11 Pons/Fleischmann submitted an article.

• During the week of March 13 the University of Utah filed a patent based on the work of the Pons/Fleischmann research team. On approximately March 21 the University of Utah, due to concerns on patent rights, decided to announce the results of the fusion research in a press conference to be held in two days.

• By March 22 the paper submitted to the JECIE had been through the peer review process, changes and modifications had been made, and the revised document was in the hands of the U.S. editor.

• On March 23 the now famous cold fusion press conference was held with Pons/Fleischmann announcing their work and belief that they had achieved cold fusion in the laboratory. On the same day articles appeared in two financial newspapers, the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times of London.

• When Jones heard about the press conference he believed that the agreement had been broken and on March 23 he sent his paper, originally scheduled for simultaneous submission on March 24, to Nature. Pons/Fleischmann submitted their paper to Nature on March 24. On April 3 the article authored by Pons/Fleischmann appeared in the JECIE under the heading "Preliminary Notes.""

(Source: “The Cold Fusion Story: A Case Study Illustrating the Communication and Information Seeking Behavior of Scientists”, V. Welborn, Hayworth press, 1991)

So, Whatever happened to ‘Cold Fusion’?So, Whatever happened to ‘Cold Fusion’?

• Questions were soon raised about the reliability of Pons and Fleischmann's nuclear measurements, given their lack of experience in quantitative isotope analysis. In the months that followed many labs rushed into experiments, and hastily announced confirmation of cold fusion before they had carried out adequate controls. In the rush to duplicate the cold-fusion results, chemists began attempting nuclear physics, and physicists tried to be electrochemists. They then had to make equally speedy retractions when the experiments did not succeed.

• The final nails in the coffin of cold fusion were hammered in by a US Department of Energy panel that concluded in October 1989 that there was nothing to cold fusion. This in turn spawned bitter accusations that hot-fusion physicists and particle physicists were out to get the cold-fusion community.

• The University of Utah continued to press forward with a cold-fusion research institute, but that lab was eventually disbanded in 1991 when it failed to replicate the earlier results. Pons and Fleischmann departed in 1992 for the south of France, where the Technova company, a subsidiary of the Toyota car company, funded a new laboratory called IMRA.

• Work on cold fusion continued in several countries, notably Japan, and this was often cited by cold-fusion believers as evidence that that US would be left in the dust when the new world energy order finally dawned. But in 1997 Japan's government finally gave up, and in 1998 IMRA was closed. Then in March 1998 the University of Utah finally gave up its struggle to obtain worldwide patents on Pons and Fleischmann's work. The rights now revert to Pons and Fleischmann themselves, should they choose to continue the pursuit of patents.

(Source: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/1258)

The King is Dead – Long live the King!The King is Dead – Long live the King!

• …will they ever learn??

• R. Taleyarkhan and co-authors published a highly debated paper in 2002 in

‘Science’claiming to have produced nuclear fusion by making tiny bubbles

collapse in a liquid. In an unusual move, Science published a companion

piece from two researchers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee —

where Taleyarkhan worked at the time — that said they could not reproduce

the result.

• Other scientists, including some at Purdue, where Taleyarkhan now works,

have tried without success to independently reproduce his results

• A Purdue committee found Taleyarkhan guilty of misconduct for citing a paper by junior

researchers in his lab as if their work was an “independent” replication of his own

findings.

• He is also found guilty of adding the name of a student who had not contributed to

the paper as an author, apparently in order to counter a reviewer’s comment that

the replication effort seemed to lack witnesses. The report stresses that corrobora-

tive information should be conveyed honestly, because reproducibility of results by

independent experimenters is a crucial component of the scientific method.

• The committee did not investigate the 2002 paper itself. A spokeswoman for Science

said that the journal "will consider the implications" of the new report's findings for the

2002 paper.

Life as a Graduate StudentLife as a Graduate Student

Pitt

You must read & understand…You must read & understand…

Some Rules of Graduate LifeSome Rules of Graduate Life

• “Work expands so as to fill the time available for its

completion” (Parkinson’s Law)

• a task will also swell in perceived complexity and

importance in direct proportion to the amount of time you

allot to it.

• This is made worse by Hofstadter's Law:

“It always takes longer than you expect, even when you

take into account Hofstadter's law.”

Solutions… (??)Solutions… (??)

• Limit the amount of time you have to do tasks! Do not procrastinate!

• For every hour of your working day, have a clear idea of what you have

to accomplish in that time.

• Have tasks that follow which are depend on completion of work

in the preceding time period

• If you setting up these mini deadlines in conjunction with fixed items in

calendar (meetings, talks etc) it gives you a hard landscape in which to

help enforce deadline pressure.

Responsibilities for PhD StudentsResponsibilities for PhD Students

Responsibilities to the Faculty and the Institution

• The student should demonstrate honesty, integrity, and diligence in the conduct of research, teaching, and in the completion of academic courses. The graduate student should diligently pursue coursework and, as appropriate, teaching and thesis research. Included in this obligation is the timely completion of manuscripts, publications, and a dissertation.

• Students have the responsibility to vigorously pursue educational opportunities directed toward becoming professionals.

• Students should broaden their educational and professional development through experiences such as industrial internships, coursework in other disciplines, and other experiential programs.

• It is the responsibility of the student to monitor progress in coursework, consult with appropriate individuals when difficulty arises, and cooperate in efforts to resolve these difficulties. The student should seek further guidance from an appropriate higher academic or administrative level if a problem cannot be resolved with the faculty member.

(From: ACS Academic Professional Guidelines)


• The research student or postdoctoral associate should consult the

supervising faculty advisor/mentor at appropriate intervals regarding

progress and should openly discuss relevant technical and administrative

problems. If a problem cannot be resolved with the faculty advisor/mentor, the

graduate student or postdoctoral associate should seek further guidance from

an appropriate higher academic or administrative level.

• The student should honor commitments relating to teaching and

research.

The student should recognize that the faculty member devotes significant time

and effort to classroom teaching, supervision of research, and other

professional activities. The commitment by the faculty member should be

matched by the student.

• Students should maintain open lines of communication with other students

and with faculty members.



• Students should clearly understand their rights and

obligations related to intellectual property and

authorship, keep accurate and complete laboratory notebooks

and records to document their work and ideas, and communicate

their results as appropriate.

• Students should be fully aware of the ethical, legal, health,

and safety implications of their education, research, and

teaching.

• Students and postdoctoral associates should take personal

responsibility for understanding, practicing, and promoting

appropriate safety procedures .



• Mentoring opportunities should be actively sought. More experienced

students should serve as mentors and educators for others. Prospective

mentors should seek professional development opportunities to increase their

mentoring skills.

• Postdoctoral associates should recognize their dual role as both

employees and scientific peers of their research mentor. Postdoctoral

appointments should be considered a short term transitional period between

graduate school and an independent professional position.

• Postdoctoral appointments should broaden the base of the associate’s

knowledge and be of mutual benefit to the associate and host laboratory.


Responsibilities for FacultyResponsibilities for Faculty

• The faculty member should exhibit honesty, integrity, and diligence in the conduct of research, teaching, mentoring, and all other professional responsibilities.

• The faculty member must take responsibility for establishing a laboratory environment consistent with the current best practices in chemical safety […].

• The faculty member should contribute to building a collegial environment among all full and part-time faculty members, students, postdoctoral associates, and staff.

• The faculty member should be a model for the professional development of students, colleagues, and staff by continuing professional development and scholarship. Broader self-education within the discipline of chemistry and chemical education as well as outside of chemistry is appropriate.

• Full attention should be directed to student learning, recognizing that the acquisition, interpretation, and dissemination of knowledge are the principal functions of an academic institution. In this role as a teacher, the faculty member should stimulate the students' interest, broaden their outlook, and encourage a sense of inquiry.



• The faculty member should willingly serve as a mentor to students,

postdoctoral associates, and other faculty members. Mentoring should include

assistance in developing a successful career and should encourage the

development of a sense of inquiry, a habit of broad-based learning, and

professional communication skills. The special obligation to provide sound

guidance to undergraduate students should be recognized. […].

• The faculty member should encourage and provide opportunities for

students to develop writing, speaking, listening, or other communication

skills necessary to achieve success in their careers.

• The faculty member should encourage the development of initiative and

independent thinking by students and postdoctoral associates.

• The faculty member should maintain an environment in the research

laboratory that fosters productivity, collaboration, and respect among

co-workers.



• The faculty member should recognize the research contributions of students, postdoctoral associates, or staff by co-authorship or appropriate acknowledgment in publications.

• Regular and periodic evaluation should be provided to students and postdoctoral associates. This communication should concern the progress of the research and provide feedback regarding the status relevant to the project, as well as constructive suggestions toward resolution of any research difficulties encountered. A functioning advisory committee should be formed for each graduate student as soon as the research is initiated. The committee should meet periodically with the student and faculty member to evaluate progress and to provide further guidance to the student.

• The faculty member should guide the student so the degree requirements, including coursework and research, can be satisfactorily completed in a reasonable amount of time. If satisfactory progress is not being made, the faculty member should inform the student that a problem exists and offer the student opportunities to correct the situation. Options may include changing research projects or faculty advisors. This discussion should occur as soon as a problem is noticed.


Avoid the Loop…!Avoid the Loop…!

Common Causes for Problems

during Graduate Studies

Common Causes for Problems

during Graduate Studies

• Failure to appreciate fundamental nature of graduate studies

• Inability to demonstrate progress

(PhD is not awarded for time spent in the lab…)

• Unreasonable demands by advisor (due to career stress, ambition,

etc)

• Failure to communicate effectively with research advisor



• Failure to communicate effectively with research

advisor

Communicate! (that means: TALK!)Communicate! (that means: TALK!)

And A Final Resource…And A Final Resource…

Pitt has an outstanding ‘Survival Skills & Ethics’ Program!!

http://www.survival.pitt.edu/

It consists of a series of informal lunch meetings and workshops, covering (virtually) all aspects of graduate & postdoc life, including job search etc.

Their webpage also contains an ever increasing number of excellent “manuals”, such as: how to write a research paper, how to prepare for a professional meeting, and how to keep a lab book.

Highly recommended!!

http://www.survival.pitt.edu/

Further InformationFurther Information

Background on Research and Publication Ethics

1. Office of Science and Technology Policy. Federal Policy on Research Misconduct. http://www.ostp.gov/html/001207_3.html (accessed Sept. 2006). This document applies to research conducted by and for Federal agencies. It contains concise definitions of various types of misconduct and guidelines for responding to allegations of misconduct.

2. American Chemical Society. Ethical Guidelines to Publication of Chemical Research. https://paragon.acs.org/paragon/ShowDocServlet?contentId=paragon/menu_content/newtothissite/eg_ethic2000.pdf (accessed Sept. 2006). These guidelines specifically state the ethical responsibilities of scientists, editors, and reviewers in scientific publication. Of particular interest for this exercise is Section B, part 11 which describes who should be listed as authors of a scientific publication.

3. A related document is the “Copyright Status Form” which can be found at https://paragon.acs.org/paragon/ShowDocServlet?contentId=paragon/menu_content/authorchecklist/copyright.pdf (accessed Sept. 2006). Note that this document states that it is signed “with the consent of all authors.”

ChE 2982 Engineering Ethics Instructor: Götz Veser Lecture V: COI, Authorship, Life as Grad...

Documents

Transcript of ChE 2982 Engineering Ethics Instructor: Götz Veser Lecture V: COI, Authorship, Life as Grad...