Ethics  for  Astronomers  

Lecture  03  

September  17,  2012  

“Research  Misconduct:    RM=PF2”  

READINGS:      Bubble  Fusion  Scandal  

US  Federal  Policy  on  Research  Misconduct  etc.  

Does  this  kind  of  stuff  really  happen?  

Misconduct:    Rare  in  astronomy?  (adapted  from  Broad  &  Wade  1994)  

Hipparcos  (~200  BC):    Published  star  catalog  taken  from  Babylonian  sources  as  if  it  were  the  result  of  his  own  observa\ons  (publica(on?)  [Toomer,  G.J.    1975,  “Dic\onary  of  Scien\fic  Biography”  (Charles  Scribner’s  Sons,  New  York),  p.  191]  

C.  Ptolemy  (~200  AD):    Claimed  to  have  performed  astronomical  measurements  that  he  did  not.  [Newton,  R.  R.  1977,  “The  Crime  of  Claudius  Ptolemy”  (JHU  Press,  Bal\more)]  

G.  Galilei  (~1600  AD):    Exaggerated  the  outcome  of  experimental  results.  [Koyre,  A.  1968,  “Metaphysics  and  Measurement:    Essays  in  Scien\fic  Revolu\on”,  (Harvard  U.  Press,  Cambridge)]  

I.  Newton  (1687-­‐1713):    Introduced  fudge  factors  into  his  magnum  opus  so  as  to  increase  its  apparent  power  of  predic\on  (intent?).  [Wesjall,  R.  S.  1973,  “Newton  and  the  fudge  factor”,  Science,  179,  751]  

RM  

Rhoads, L. J. 2002, “Beyond conflict of interest: The responsible conduct of research”, Science & Engineering Ethics, 8, 459.

•  38% are professors •  ORI received 1752 allegations 310 investigations (18%) 124 misconduct (40% of investigated or 7% of initial) •  Is that a lot? Numbers versus severity of one incident.

RM  

Rhoads, L. J. 2002, “Beyond conflict of interest: The responsible conduct of research”, Science & Engineering Ethics, 8, 459.

•  Falsification & fabrication alone or in combination = 86% of misconduct findings. •  Plagiarism alone or in combination = 14% •  Similar table from NSF gives plagiarism = 60% •  Depends on authority of institution, PHS returns plagiarism case back to institutions for resolution. •  Some plagiarism cases dominated by “authorship disputes”.

PF2  

•  Plagiarism:    “the  appropria\on  of  another  person’s  ideas,  processes,  results  or  words  without  giving  appropriate  credit,  including  those  obtained  through  confiden\al  review  of  others’  research  proposals  and  manuscripts”      [Federal  Register,  October  14,  1999]    Words  and  ideas?  

•  Judged  rela\ve  to  the  norms  of  the  par\cular  discipline?  

•  Unnecessary  to  cite  common  knowledge  [e.g.  “gravity”  (Newton)]  

•  How  should  plagiarism  be  resolved?    (apology?,  retrac\on?,  sanc\ons?)  •  Collegial  solu\ons  among  peers,  formal  pathways  otherwise.  

•  Was  it  sloppy  work,  or  inten\onal?  

•  Why  is  plagiarism  unethical?    What  are  the  wider  consequences?  

PF2  

•  Fabrica/on:    “making  up  data  or  results  and  recording  or  repor\ng  them”      [Federal  Policy  on  Research  Misconduct]  

•  Falsifica/on:    “manipula\ng  research  materials,  equipment,  or  processes,  or  changing  or  omimng  data  or  results  such  that  the  research  is  not  accurately  represented  in  the  research  record”      [Federal  Policy  on  Research  Misconduct]  

•  Judged  rela\ve  to  the  norms  of  the  par\cular  discipline?  •  How  should  F2  be  resolved?    (apology?,  retrac\on?,  sanc\ons?)  

•  Was  it  sloppy  work,  or  inten\onal?  

•  What  happens  if  it  is  NOT  federal  research?  

•  Why  is  F2  unethical?    What  are  the  wider  consequences?  

We  are  in  a  collabora\ve  team,  3  subteams  complete  3  preparatory  observa\ons  that  need  to  be  included  into  a  grant  proposal  that  is  due  tomorrow.    The  PI  of  the  project  explains  that  only  8  proposals  will  be  approved  out  of  800  submioed,  and  the  grant  commioee  will  be  looking  for  any  possible  reason  to  reject  a  proposal.    The  project  has  6  students  and  4  postdocs  who  are  supported  from  the  exis\ng  project,  but  in  approximately  10  months  the  funding  will  drop  to  25%  of  its  current  level.    

Team  A  presents  the  result  below,  but  cannot  explain  the  discrepant  point.    The  PI  notes  that  the  methodology  may  appear  flawed  if  they  indicate  an  “unknown  source  of  error”.    Team  B  suggests  that  the  point  is  removed.      How  would  they  jus\fy  this  ac\on,  and  how  would  you  argue  against  it?  

Team  B  presents  the  results  from  an  observa\on  performed  iden\cally  three  \mes  over.    They  suggest  that  the  second  trial  is  so  low  that  it  is  wrong,  and  in  its  place  the  team  could  report  the  average  of  the  first  and  third  

trials.    Is  this  falsifica\on  of  fabrica\on?  Trial   Data   Suggested  Value  

#1   75.89   75.89  

#2   23.33   74.33  

#3   72.77   72.77  

Team  C  gives  the  following  data  for  a  third  experiment.    The  drop  towards  the  laoer  third  of  the  experiment  is  consistent  with  a  change  in  bias  in  the  electronics  of  the  detector.    Since  the  bias  correc\on  is  applied  to  all  of  the  data,  they  suggest  offsemng  the  curve  upward  by  the  median  value  of  the  previous  points.    Since  bias  correc\ons  are  not  detailed  in  the  grant  proposal,  this  bias  correc\on  does  not  need  to  be  men\oned  in  the  proposal.  Is  this  “cooking”  the  data?  

1.  Fairness:    Everybody  else  is  doing,  fair  for  us  to  do  it.  

2.  Benefit  to  science  outweighs  the  cost,  ends  jus\fy  the  means.  

3.  Making  up  for  errors.  4.  We  need  the  research  support.  

5.  What  else?  

The  PI  instructs  team  A  to  send  the  plot  with  the  discrepant  point  removed,  team  B  to  take  the  average  value  for  trial  #2,  and  team  C  to  provide  a  plot  with  the  “corrected”  data.  

Aser  the  mee\ng,  student  Arthur  says  to  postdoc  Lisa:    “Dude,  I  can’t  believe  we’re  just  gonna  make  up  some  of  this  data.”    Lisa  says,  “Oh,  he  has  his  reasons.    Think  of  it  this  way:  

What  is  the  underlying  assump\on  on  the  first  page  that  is  driving  the  PI’s  decision?  

•  ?  

Should  any  of  the  students  or  postdocs  leave  the  group,  and  with  what  consequences?  

•  A  real  life  example:  •  Farewell  Message  from  Alan  Stern,  Associate  Administrator  for  NASA's  

Science  Mission  Directorate  –  NASA  Headquarters,  03  April  2008  

–  “As  you  probably  know  by  now,  I  have  announced  my  resigna\on  as  NASA's  Associate  Administrator  for  SMD  and  will  be  depar\ng  at  the  end  of  this  week…    I  assure  you  that  my  decision  to  resign  came  only  aser  several  months  of  hard  thought  and  reflec\on  about  the  consequences  of  spiraling  mission  costs  that  SMD  could  not  control.  In  the  end,  this  became  an  important  maoer  of  principle…”  

–  Analogy:    Mike  Griffin  is  the  PI,  Alan  Stern  is  the  lead  “postdoc”  driving  the  science  forward.  

–  The  PI  risks  losing  his  talented  team  when  “principles”  are  trampled.  

–  How  does  the  “postdoc”  weigh  the  long  term  benefits  versus  overlooking  the  short  term  problems.  

–  Compare  the  alterna\ves  for  employment  available  to  Alan  Stern,  a  postdoc,  and  a  student.  

Bubble  Fusion  Scandal  

•  What  are  the  essen\al  facts  of  the  case?      

2002, Science, 295, 1868

Can  it  happen  in  astronomy?  

Can  it  happen  in  astronomy?  

Planet discovery not confirmed by Swiss Group...

Can  it  happen  in  astronomy?  

Can  it  happen  in  astronomy?  

What should be done?

Bubble  Fusion  Scandal  

•  List  of  APS  guidelines  violated  (PF2  ?)  

US  Federal  Policies  on  Research  Misconduct  

•  ?  

Should  RM  have  a  defini\on  wider  than  PF2?  

•  Posn  1:  

•  Project:    Create  an  astronomy  data  case  study  to  illustrate  fabrica\on  and/or  falsifica\on  of  research  results  (base  it  on  astronomical  data  or  theory),  or  plagiarism.    If  appropriate,  a  project  may  be  disemminated  on  the  course  web  site.    Use  your  imagina\on  or  consider  real-­‐life  projects.  

•  Present  in  class  next  week.  

•  Start  reading  “Conflict  of  Interest”  material.