The Price of Truth: How Money Affects the Norms of Science (Practical and Professional Ethics)

Looking for other ways to read this?

---

Choose your country or region Close. Ebook This title is available as an ebook. To purchase, visit your preferred ebook provider. Oxford Scholarship Online This book is available as part of Oxford Scholarship Online - view abstracts and keywords at book and chapter level. Resnik Practical and Professional Ethics.

Playing Politics with Science David B. Thinking Like an Engineer Michael Davis. Knowing Better Daniel Star. Journalism Ethics Christopher Meyers. The Character Gap Christian B. Have scientists become entrepreneurs bent on making money instead of investigators searching for the truth? How does the commercialization of research affect the public's perception of science? Can scientists prevent money from corrupting the research enterprise? What types of rules, polices, and guidelines should scientists adopt to prevent financial interests from adversely affecting research and the public's opinion of science?

Also Available In:

Shimm and Allen E. Conflicts of interest in clinical practice and research. This collection of essays examine a broad set of issues involving conflicts of interest in medicine and other fields, providing an overview of what constitutes a conflict of interest a detailed discussion of conflicts of interest in medicine, and a final chapter focusing on conflicts of interest between physician and the pharmaceutical industry. Conflict of interest in American public life. Taking a broad approach to conflict of interest, this book analyzes the historical and recent debate and conception of conflicts of interest, and draws from case studies from a wide variety of disciplines.

A comparison of conflict of interest policies at peer-reviewed journals in different scientific disciplines. This article presents the results of a survey of high-impact peer-reviewed journals in twelve different scientific disciplines to compare their conflict of interest policies. The authors found that out of eighty-four journals, only twenty-eight had published policies, though a number of journals when contacted did respond that they did have such a policy. The authors found that frequency of policies varied among disciplines, with medical journals being the likeliest to have one and physics the least likely.

Having a policy was correlated with the ranking of the journal, the highest impact journal in a discipline having a policy, as well as a reported history of conflict of interest problems. The authors found that though there was an increase in journals having conflict of interest policies from a study done in , there is a further need for these policies to be readily available and to include a clear definition of conflict of interest and details about how disclosures would be managed during peer review and publication.

Boyd, EA, and Lisa A. Defining financial conflicts and managing research relationships: An analysis of university conflict of interest committee decisions. Science and Engineering Ethics This article analyzes the discussions and decisions of three conflict of interest committees in California universities to look at the decision-making processes of these committees, as they struggle to understand complex financial relationships, reconcile institutional, state, and federal policies, and protect the integrity of the scientific process.

Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics. This encyclopedia article provides a clear description of what is meant by a conflict of interest, different kinds of conflicts of interest that exist, and strategies for dealing with conflicts as they arise. Institutional conflicts of interest: Protecting human subjects, scientific integrity, and institutional accountability. Describes the difficulties arising from the conflicting interests of universities and research institutions overseeing research, and the potential threat these pose to human research subjects and research integrity.

This is doubly true in regard to the shift of funding for biomedical research from government to industry, and the increasing commercial involvement in research. Science and Engineering Ethics 12 1: The impact of conflict of interest on trust in science. Science and Engineering Ethics 8 4: The article discusses the erosive effect conflicts of interest have on the integrity of scientific research and how it damages the way in which the public views scientists and their work, and the relationships among scientists themselves.

The author recognizes disclosure as the key way to manage conflicts of interest, but also reviews other ways to improve the situation such as the improvement of rules and sanctions, new techniques for avoidance of financial conflicts by developing new funding resources for evaluative research, and new thinking about how to reduce institutional conflicts of interest. Gingras, Yves, and Pierre-Marc Gosselin.

A historical overview, The article discusses the development of the concept of "conflicts of interest" in the area of science, and shows that the content of discussions over conflicts of interest have changed over time with the transformation of the research system. The authors look at the presence of the phrase "conflicts of interest" in the journal Science over the past century to show how three different meanings have emerged, and how the changes in meaning are closely linked with the changing structure of the relations between the scientific community with the State and with industry.

Attitudes of academic and clinical researchers toward financial ties in research: This article summarizes the data from seventeen surveys looking at the attitudes of researchers to financial ties in research. The literature review revealed that investigators are concerned about the impact of financial ties on choice of research topic, research conduct and publication, but this concern is less among investigators already involved with industry. Researchers approve of industry collaboration and financial ties when the ties are indirectly related to the research, disclosure is upfront, and results and ideas are freely publicized.

However, their trust in disclosure as a way to manage conflicts may reveal a lack of awareness of the actual impact of financial incentives on themselves and other researchers. In the grip of the python: Conflicts at the university-industry interface. Science and Engineering Ethics 9 1: The author discusses a case he was personally involved with where a pharmaceutical company he was working with infringed on his academic freedom. The author discusses some of the disturbing observations he made during his involvement in the case, including evidence that pharmaceutical companies have miscoded raw data on suicidal acts and suicidal ideation caused by their antidepressants, and a growing body of examples of ghostwriting of articles in the therapeutics domain.

Many of the tensions evident in this case, therefore, can be linked to company abilities to keep clinical trial data out of the public domain.

This, the author argues, is the point at which the pharmaceutical python gets a grip on academia. Conflict of interest policies in science and medical journals: Editorial practices and author disclosures. Science and Engineering Ethics 7: This study looks at how scientific and biomedical journals have adopted conflict of interest policies for authors, and if these policies have lead to any financial disclosure statements being published by the journals.

Of the journal editors surveyed, about three-fourths do publish these kinds of disclosure statements. The authors conjecture that this low rate suggests that either authors have a low rate of financial interest in the subject matter of their publications, or there is poor compliance to journals' conflict of interest policies. How independent are IRBs? Ethics and Human Research 30 3: This article explores the independence of institutional review boards and other ethical committees charged with reviewing research proposals.

The author discusses issues of conflict of interest that can arise, and suggests some different arrangements that could minimize conflicts of interest and ensure the operation of truly independent research ethics committees. Science and Engineering Ethics 8 3: This article discusses a meeting of leaders in academic medicine convened by the leadership of the Harvard Medical School to formulate guidelines on individual conflicts of interest that often arise in industry sponsored clinical trials at universities.

Conflict of interest and medical publication. The paper discusses the ethical requirement for researchers to publish the results of some medical studies, even if the data is "negative". Since publication is an essential part of research and patients have been recruited into a study in the belief that they are participating in medical research, there is an ethical commitment to publish the observations made on volunteer subjects.

Conflicts of interest in science. Perspectives on Science 6 4: The essay gives an overview of some current conflict in interest policies, and distinguishes real, apparent, and potential conflicts of interest. It then looks at some short, fictional case studies and uses these to suggest some strategies for reducing the impact of conflicts of interest in science. Discusses how the expansion and the rush to market in the pharmaceutical industry is creating new conflicts of interest, and the need for academic medicine and governments to find means to sustain the development of independent clinical research to help avoid these conflicts from occurring.

Schrag, Brian, et al. Barking up the wrong tree? Industry funding of academic research: A case study with commentaries. Science and Engineering Ethics 9 4: This article presents a case study involving conflicts of interest arising from the industrial funding of academic research, and is accompanied by discussion questions and four commentaries about the case.

Sollitto, Sharmon, et al. Intrinsic conflicts of interest in clinical research: A need for disclosure. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 13 2: Though financial conflicts of interest are addressed by university policies, government regulations and professional guidelines, intrinsic conflicts of interest — or conflicts of interest in all clinical research, still pose many moral issues.

They should be disclosed to research subjects and managed as assiduously as financial conflicts of interest. The need to control conflict of interests in biomedical research.

Science and Engineering Ethics 2 4: The author looks at the increasing concern over conflict of interests that occur in biomedical research, especially in regard to collaborative relationships between universities and industries that can make individual and organization financial conflicts of interest more acute. The author looks at the types of conflict of interest that can occur, and analyzes an actual problem posed by two proposed clinical trials. National Institutes of Health, Office of Research Intergrity: This chapter of an online version of a booklet produced by the U.

Office of Research Integrity describes some of the best practices for record keeping, and includes case studies. Fields, Kay L and Alan R. National Institutes of Health: One of the charges of the Commission was to identify the basic ethical principles that should underlie the conduct of biomedical and behavioral research involving human subjects and to develop guidelines. Declaration of Helsinki A statement made by the World Medical Association that has largely replaced the Nuremberg Code as the current international standard for experimentation using human subjects.

Office of Human Research Protections: OHRP is charged with interpreting and overseeing the implementation of all regulations regarding the protection of human subjects. Includes links to ethical guidelines and regulations, fact sheets, and policy statements of the National Institutes of Health. Also, see the Human Subject Assurance Training tutorial that explains the responsibilities of a member of an Internal Review Board of a federally supported project involving human subjects. It covers Human Health and Safety regulations and institutional responsibilities, investigator responsibilities and informed consent, and the Human Research Protections Program.

Research on Human Specimens: Consent to Research and the Therapeutic Misconception. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 5. The Chronicle of Higher Education 47 July 6, Ethical and Regulatory Aspects of Clinical Research: Johns Hopkins University Press, The Capacity to Understand and Appreciate Risk.

Seeking Justice in Research. The Need for their Exclusion. Research on Human Subjects [Special Issue]. American Journal of Law and Medicine The Patient as Partner: A Theory of Human-Experimentation Ethics. Indiana University Press, Philosophy of Medical Research and Practice. S ee an expanded bibliography on this topic. An online module off of the Online Ethics Center that includes an introductory essay, and number of case studies to be discussed, and well as recommended reading and web sources on mentoring.

Mentoring, ethics, and professional responsibility. Available through Galvin Library's article request system. Background Papers and Resource Documents. National Academies Press, National Academy Press, Washington, D. Irving Hexman of the University of Calgary, gives a very clear definition of plagiarism, and examples of common types of plagiarism that often appear in student papers. The Experience of NSF. Article by a former staff member of the Office of the Inspector General at the National Science Foundation, which deals with allegations of misconduct that NSF receives in connections with its proposals and awards discussing the types of plagiarism cases the office investigates.

This simple tutorial introduces you to different types of plagarism, and the proper way to cite original sources. Not designed specifically for science students, but useful to get a general idea of of how to avoid plagorizing in assignments. What is the Problem? Handling Real Allegations of Research Misconduct. Article by a university research integrity officer that presents eight cases highlighting how appearances can be mistaken, policies for handling allegations of research misconduct cannot cover every contingency, and many cases can be resolved without resort to formal procedures.

Federal Policy on Research Misconduct effective December 6, In October of , the Office of Science and Technology Policy published a request for public comment on a proposed Federal misconduct policy. Based on comments received, this policy was written and enacted into law. It applies to to all research done by Federal agencies, to all research conducted or managed by Federal government contractors, and all federally-funded research performed at research institutions, including universities and industry.

Office of Research Integrity for institutions to use as a starting point for drafting their own policy for how to respond to allegations of scientific misconduct. This article looks at the wide range of questionable behaviors that can arise in the routine practice of scientific research. While only a handful of behaviors are considered as fraudulent, such as manufacturing data, the complexity of scientific research means that often minor lapses in ethical behavior slide by unnoticed.

This does not mean that these dubious practices are not unethical, merely that many scientists have come to regard them as part of the standard scientific method. The study found that most allegations against students are for falsification and fabrication of data, and the sanctions imposed when allegations proved to be true.

British Medical Journal Skip to main content.

The Price of Truth - David B. Resnik - Oxford University Press

General Resources Ethics Centers. Cases - Collections of cases and information on famous science misconduct cases. A book-length analysis of the case documenting the notorious legal proceedings of the case. Kevles takes a sympathetic view of Dr. Imanishi-Kari, and uses the case to show how science is less an assertion of truth then an ongoing dialogue between scientists.

An extremely detailed case study that first gives an historical account of the case, and then uses it to discuss the responsibilities of scientists conducting research, both for themselves, their colleagues, and the public at large. Cold Fusion Case In , Dr. Darsee Case In May of , Dr. Gallo Case In , Dr. Gallo had committed scientific misconduct. Misconduct charges were later dropped after an a panel heard an appeal by Dr. Popovic, and reversed his charges of misconduct. The AIDS virus dispute: Awarding Priority for the Human Immunodeficiency Virus.

Science, Technology, and Human Values. Poehlman Case Dr. A detailed history of the Poehlman case that highlights the cooperative approach in handling the case between government agencies, which ultimately led to a highly publicized guilty plea and felony charges. A press release from the ORI briefly explaining the charges against Dr. The principles of science and the practices of the disciplines are transmitted by scientists in classroom settings and, perhaps more importantly, in research groups and teams. The social setting of the research group is a strong and valuable characteristic of American science and education.

The dynamics of research groups can foster —or inhibit—innovation, creativity, education, and collaboration. One author of a historical study of research groups in the chemical and biochemical sciences has observed that the laboratory director or group leader is the primary determinant of a group's practices Fruton, 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.

Research directors and department chairs, by virtue of personal example, thus can reinforce, or weaken, the power of disciplinary standards and scientific norms to affect research practices. 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. When the behavior of research directors or department chairs diverges from expectations for good practice, however, the expected norms of science become ambiguous, and their effects are thus weakened.

Thus personal example and the perceived behavior of role models and leaders in the research community can be powerful stimuli in shaping the research practices of colleagues, associates, and students. The role of individuals in influencing research practices can vary by research field, institution, or time. 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. Individual and group behaviors may also be more influential in times of uncertainty and change in science, especially when new scientific theories, paradigms, or institutional relationships are being established.

Universities, independent institutes, and government and industrial research organizations create the environment in which research is done. As the recipients of federal funds and the institutional sponsors of research activities, administrative officers must comply with regulatory and legal requirements that accompany public support. Academic institutions traditionally have relied on their faculty to ensure that appropriate scientific and disciplinary standards are maintained.

A few universities and other research institutions have also adopted policies or guidelines to clarify the principles that their members are expected to observe in the conduct of scientific research. Institutional policies governing research practices can have a powerful effect on research practices if they are commensurate with the norms that apply to a wide spectrum of research investigators. In particular, the process of adopting and implementing strong institutional policies can sensitize the members of those institutions to the potential for ethical problems in their work.

Ethical Marketing

Institutional policies can establish explicit standards that institutional officers then have the power to enforce with sanctions and penalties. Institutional policies are limited, however, in their ability to specify the details of every problematic situation, and they can weaken or displace individual professional judgment in such situations. Currently, academic institutions have very few formal policies and programs in specific areas such as authorship, communication and publication, and training and supervision.

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. 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.

The standards and criteria used to monitor institutional compliance with an increasing number of government regulations and policies affecting research practices have been a source of significant disagreement and tension within the research community. In recent years, some government research agencies have also adopted policies and procedures for the treatment of research data and materials in their extramural research programs.

For example, the National Science Foundation NSF has implemented a data-sharing policy through program management actions, including proposal review and award negotiations and conditions. In seeking to foster data sharing under federal grant awards, the government relies extensively on the scientific traditions of openness and sharing. Research agency officials have observed candidly that if the vast majority of scientists were not so committed to openness and dissemination, government policy might require more aggressive action.

But the principles that have traditionally characterized scientific inquiry can be difficult to maintain. Research scientists are part of a larger human society that has recently experienced profound changes in attitudes about ethics, morality, and accountability in business, the professions, and government. These attitudes have included greater skepticism of the authority of experts and broader expectations about the need for visible mechanisms to assure proper research practices, especially in areas that affect the public welfare.

Social attitudes are also having a more direct influence on research practices as science achieves a more prominent and public role in society. In particular, concern about waste, fraud, and abuse involving government funds has emerged as a factor that now directly influences the practices of the research community. Varying historical and conceptual perspectives also can affect expectations about standards of research practice. The criticism suggests that all scientists at all times, in all phases of their work, should be bound by identical standards.

Yet historical studies of the social context in which scientific knowledge has been attained suggest that modern criticism of early scientific work often imposes contemporary standards of objectivity and empiricism that have in fact been developed in an evolutionary manner. But such practices, by today 's standards, would not be acceptable without reporting the justification for omission of recorded data.

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. 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. Scientists must consistently guard against self-deception, however, particularly when theoretical prejudices tend to overwhelm the skepticism and objectivity basic to experimental practices. Thus, in some cases, their observations may come closer to theoretical expectations than what might be statistically proper.

This source of bias may be acceptable when it is influenced by scientific insight and judgment. But political, financial, or other sources of bias can corrupt the process of data selection. 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. The coupling of science to other social purposes in fostering economic growth and commercial technology requires renewed vigilance to maintain acceptable standards for disclosure and control of financial or competitive conflicts of interest and bias in the research environment.

The failure to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate sources of bias in research practices can lead to erosion of public trust in the autonomy of the research enterprise. In reviewing modern research practices for a range of disciplines, and analyzing factors that could affect the integrity of the research process, the panel focused on the following four areas:. Commonly understood practices operate in each area to promote responsible research conduct; nevertheless, some questionable research practices also occur.

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. For example, promotion or appointment policies that stress quantity rather than the quality of publications as a measure of productivity could contribute to questionable practices.

Scientific experiments and measurements are transformed into research data. Research data are the basis for reporting discoveries and experimental results. 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.

Standard procedures, innovations for particular purposes, and judgments concerning the data are also reported. The general standard of practice is to provide information that is sufficiently complete so that another scientist can repeat or extend the experiment. When a scientist communicates a set of results and a related piece of theory or interpretation in any form at a meeting, in a journal article, or in a book , it is assumed that the research has been conducted as reported.

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. On occasion what is actually proper research practice may be confused with misconduct in science.

Thus, for example, applying scientific judgment to refine data and to remove spurious results places. Responsible practice requires that scientists disclose the basis for omitting or modifying data in their analyses of research results, especially when such omissions or modifications could alter the interpretation or significance of their work. 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 ; advances in the methods and technologies that are used to collect, retain, and share data; and the costs of data storage.

More specific concerns have involved the profitability associated with the patenting of science-based results in some fields and the need to verify independently the accuracy of research results used in public or private decision making. In resolving competing claims, the interests of individual scientists and research institutions may not always coincide: The general norms of science emphasize the principle of openness.

Scientists are generally expected to exchange research data as well as unique research materials that are essential to the replication or extension of reported findings. The report Sharing Research Data concluded that the general principle of data sharing is widely accepted, especially in the behavioral and social sciences NRC, The report catalogued the benefits of data sharing, including maintaining the integrity of the research process by providing independent opportunities for verification, refutation, or refinement of original results and data; promoting new research and the development and testing of new theories; and encouraging appropriate use of empirical data in policy formulation and evaluation.

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.

The exchange of research data and reagents is ideally governed by principles of collegiality and reciprocity: Such cases may be well known to senior research investigators, but they are not well documented. Some scientists may share materials as part of a collaborative agreement in exchange for co-authorship on resulting publications. Some donors stipulate that the shared materials are not to be used for applications already being pursued by the donor's laboratory.

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. In some instances, so-called materials transfer agreements are executed to specify the responsibilities of donor and recipient. As more academic research is being supported under proprietary agreements, researchers and institutions are experiencing the effects of these arrangements on research practices.

Governmental support for research studies may raise fundamental questions of ownership and rights of control, particularly when data are subsequently used in proprietary efforts, public policy decisions, or litigation. Some federal research agencies have adopted policies for data sharing to mitigate conflicts over issues of ownership and access NIH, ; NSF, b. Many research investigators store primary data in the laboratories in which the data were initially derived, generally as electronic records or data sheets in laboratory notebooks.

For most academic laboratories, local customary practice governs the storage or discarding of research data. Formal rules or guidelines concerning their disposition are rare. Many laboratories customarily store primary data for a set period often 3 to 5 years after they are initially collected.

Data that support publications are usually retained for a longer period than are those tangential to reported results. Some research laboratories serve as the proprietor of data and data books that are under the stewardship of the principal investigator. Others maintain that it is the responsibility of the individuals who collected the data to retain proprietorship, even if they leave the laboratory.

Concerns about misconduct in science have raised questions about the roles of research investigators and of institutions in maintaining and providing access to primary data. In some cases of alleged misconduct, the inability or unwillingness of an investigator to provide. Many scientists believe that access should be restricted to peers and colleagues, usually following publication of research results, to reduce external demands on the time of the investigator. Others have suggested that raw data supporting research reports should be accessible to any critic or competitor, at any time, especially if the research is conducted with public funds.

This topic, in particular, could benefit from further research and systematic discussion to clarify the rights and responsibilities of research investigators, institutions, and sponsors. 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.

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. A few universities have also considered the creation of central storage repositories for all primary data collected by their research investigators.

Subscriber Login

Some government research institutions and industrial research centers maintain such repositories to safeguard the record of research developments for scientific, historical, proprietary, and national security interests. In the academic environment, however, centralized research records raise complex problems of ownership, control, and access. Centralized data storage is costly in terms of money and space, and it presents logistical problems of cataloguing and retrieving data. There have been suggestions that some types of scientific data should be incorporated into centralized computerized data banks, a portion of which could be subject to periodic auditing or certification.

Some scientific journals now require that full data for research papers be deposited in a centralized data bank before final publication. Policies and practices differ, but in some fields support is growing for compulsory deposit to enhance researchers' access to supporting data. Advances in electronic and other information technologies have raised new questions about the customs and practices that influence the storage, ownership, and exchange of electronic data and software. 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.

Computer technology can enhance research collaboration; it can also create new impediments to data sharing resulting from increased costs, the need for specialized equipment, or liabilities or uncertainties about responsibilities for faulty data, software, or computer-generated models. Advances in computer technology may assist in maintaining and preserving accurate records of research data.

Such records could help resolve questions about the timing or accuracy of specific research findings, especially when a principal investigator is not available or is uncooperative in responding to such questions. In principle, properly managed information technologies, utilizing advances in nonerasable optical disk systems, might reinforce openness in scientific research and make primary data more transparent to collaborators and research managers.

For example, the so-called WORM write once, read many systems provide a high-density digital storage medium that supplies an ineradicable audit trail and historical record for all entered information Haas, Advances in information technologies could thus provide an important benefit to research institutions that wish to emphasize greater access to and storage of primary research data.

But the development of centralized information systems in the academic research environment raises difficult issues of ownership, control, and principle that reflect the decentralized character of university governance. Such systems are also a source of additional research expense, often borne by individual investigators. 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.

Scientists communicate research results by a variety of formal and informal means. In earlier times, new findings and interpretations were communicated by letter, personal meeting, and publication. Today, computer networks and facsimile machines have sup-. Scientific meetings routinely include poster sessions and press conferences as well as formal presentations. Although research publications continue to document research findings, the appearance of electronic publications and other information technologies heralds change.

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. 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.

Evaluation of the accomplishments of individual scientists often involves not only the numbers of articles that have resulted from a selected research effort, but also the particular journals in which the articles have appeared. Journal submission dates are often important in establishing priority and intellectual property claims. Authorship of original research reports is an important indicator of accomplishment, priority, and prestige within the scientific community.

Questions of authorship in science are intimately connected with issues of credit and responsibility. Authorship practices are guided by disciplinary traditions, customary practices within research groups, and professional and journal standards and policies. A general rule is that an author must have participated sufficiently in the work to take responsibility for its content and vouch for its validity. Some journals have adopted more specific guidelines, suggesting that credit for authorship be contingent on substantial participation in one or more of the following categories: The extent of participation in these four activities required for authorship varies across journals, disciplines, and research groups.

Some scientists have requested or been given authorship as a form of recognition of their status or influence rather than their intellectual contribution. Some research leaders have a custom of including their own names in any paper issuing from their laboratory, although this practice is increasingly discouraged. In some cases, noncontributing authors have been listed without their consent, or even without their being told. In response to these practices, some journals now require all named authors to sign the letter that accompanies submission of the original article, to ensure that no author is named without consent.

In these cases, a co-author may claim responsibility for a specialized portion of the paper and may not even see or be able to defend the paper as a whole. However, the risks associated with the inabilities of co-authors to vouch for the integrity of an entire paper are great; scientists may unwittingly become associated with a discredited publication. Another problem of lesser importance, except to the scientists involved, is the order of authors listed on a paper. The meaning of author order varies among and within disciplines. 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.

Another practice, common in biology, is to list the senior author last. Appropriate recognition for the contributions of junior investigators, postdoctoral fellows, and graduate students is sometimes a source of discontent and unease in the contemporary research environment. 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.

In some cases, well-meaning senior scientists may grant junior colleagues. In others, significant contributions may not receive appropriate recognition. Authorship practices are further complicated by large-scale projects, especially those that involve specialized contributions. 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. 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?

How is the spokesperson for the experiment determined? Who determines who can give talks on the experiment?

The Price of Truth

How should credit for technical or hardware contributions be acknowledged? Apart from plagiarism, problems of authorship and credit allocation usually do not involve misconduct in science. Many research groups have found that the best method of resolving authorship questions is to agree on a designation of authors at the outset of the project. The negotiation and decision process provides initial recognition of each member's effort, and it may prevent misunderstandings that can arise during the course of the project when individuals may be in transition to new efforts or may become preoccupied with other matters.

Plagiarism is using the ideas or words of another person without giving appropriate credit. Plagiarism includes the unacknowledged use of text and ideas from published work, as well as the misuse of privileged information obtained through confidential review of research proposals and manuscripts.

As described in Honor in Science, plagiarism can take many forms: The misuse of privileged information may be less clear-cut because it does not involve published work. But the general principles.

• Memoirs Of Two Poets
• Broccoli Salad: An Old Favorite! (Easy Reader Recipes Book 14)
• Eighty Eight
• Stanca del mio Fortuna omai - Score
• Survivor on Death Row
• The Fishing Creek Confederacy