What is misconduct?

The results of a small survey of graduate students and post-docs suggest that our research trainees don’t really know what research misconduct is below the level of flat-out fabrication.

However, we were dismayed that only 54 per cent gave a three to “knowingly selecting only those data that support a hypothesis” and 42 per cent to “deleting some data to make trends clearer”. The naivety is staggering. – Tim Birkhead & Tom Montgomerie

They also note that these individuals face considerable barriers to reporting misconduct when they believe it has occurred.

I recall the mandatory ethics class we took at Washington University in St. Louis. It was worthless. I recall spending a great deal of time talking about “salami science”. Salami science is the practice of parceling your work out into as many paper with as little unique content each as possible. This is bad behavior that games some of the systems used to evaluate researchers. It does not, however, corrupt the scientific results with inaccurate data and results.

While I received my training in proper, scientific conduct in my thesis lab, that is not a sustainable solution. The future of scientific investigation should not depend on the efforts of individual thesis mentors – they are simply too inconsistent. Ethics education is key to training in the proper implementation of the scientific method and should be central to all aspects of graduate training, including the development of quality courses that provide real training in ethics and identifying misconduct.

There seems to be a trend

In an depressingly similar story to those found in the SAFE13 study reported by Kathryn Clancy, Robin Nelson, Julienne Rutherford, and Katie Hinde, respected science writer Christie Aschwanden wrote up the results of a survey of science writers for the New York Times:

More than half of the female respondents said they weren’t taken seriously because of their gender, one in three had experienced delayed career advancement, and nearly half said they had not received credit for their ideas. Almost half said they had encountered flirtatious or sexual remarks, and one in five had experienced uninvited physical contact. – Christie Aschwanden

The results and additional information are available as part of the plenary presentation from the Women in Science Writing: Solutions Summit 2014.

Based on these surveys, it is hard to compare scientific field work or science writing to any other professions. It is disturbing that every time we actually take a look under this particular rock we find similar results.

The failure to look for the problem does not mean that you don’t have a problem.

 

Poe’s Comet Cataclysm: End of the World 1839

Edgar Allen Poe’s The Conversation of Eiros and Charmion (1839)

Great_Comet_1861The word “apocalypse” not only means a cataclysm that ends the current world order, but also, from the word’s Greek root, a revelation of truth. Poe’s very short story about the End of the World is an apocalypse in both senses of the word. In this early instance of the cataclysmic-collision-with-celestial-object tale, Poe makes an odd mix of science and prophesy to capture the moment of “the speculative Future merged in the august and certain Present.” “Eiros and Charmion” shows us what happens when the unknown becomes the dramatically revealed known.

The story starts with Eiros waking up to the startling realization that the afterlife is real, and that he (or she — Poe doesn’t say) is in it. His old friend Charmion, who died ten years earlier, is there to welcome him, happy to see Eiros “looking life-like and rational.” Charmion informs Eiros that their earthly names have been discarded, and that tomorrow he’ll induct his friend “into the full joys and wonders of your novel existence.” Continue reading “Poe’s Comet Cataclysm: End of the World 1839”

Science for The People: Science & Politics

sftpThis week Science for The People is talking about science and evidence in the political process. They talk to Dan Kahan, Professor of Law and Professor of Psychology at Yale Law School, about the Cultural Cognition Project, which studies group values and perceptions of risk in science communication. They also speak to Shane Trimmer, Executive Director of Franklin’s List, about their work to elect pro-science candidates. Biologist Katie Gibbs returns with an update on Evidence for Democracy, which advocates for the transparent use of evidence in Canadian government policy.

If reading is more your thing, check out “I’ll Trade You an Evolutionary Theory for Your Creationism” or “For Sale: 1 Vote, Price ‘Science’ or Best Offer” (posted at Culture of Science) for a Finch & Pea-esque take on some of the topics raised in this episode of Science for The People.

*Josh provides research help to Science for The People and is, therefore, a completely biased and cooperative member of the team. He does, however, insists on capitalizing the show name as he sees fit.

“…there is no support from the field of population genetics for Wade’s conjectures.”

If you are a regular patron of The Finch & Pea, you know that Nicholas Wade’s controversial book, A Troublesome Inheritance (link is to David Dobbs’ unflattering review), is a work of pseudoscience that purports to draw on the fields of human and population genetics to support a panoply of racist stereotypes. Now, a lengthy list of leaders in these fields, tired of their work being misappropriated, have signed a letter asserting:

We are in full agreement that there is no support from the field of population genetics for Wade’s conjectures. – Graham Coop, Michael Eisen, Rasmus Nielsen, Molly Przeworski & Noah Rosenberg (+134 signatories)

As Mary Carmichael notes, this is probably the first time these 139 scientists have ever agreed on anything.

*Hat tip to Daniel MacArthur.