|Course Coordinator:||Anastasios Sarampalis|
|Office Hour:||Mondays, 14:00 to 16:00|
|Tel:||+31 (0) 50 363 6778|
|Time of Workshop:||Friday 15/12/2016, 13:00 – 17:00|
|Location of Workshop:||Blauwezaal of Linnaeusborg|
Aims And Scope
Discussions on academic integrity and science ethics are certainly not new and each generation of academics faces its own questions and dilemmas. Yours is no different in that respect, yet some of the challenges you will face in your career are either entirely novel or coloured by fast-moving and diverse technological advances. The broad aim of this workshop is to highlight the present ethical controversies and bring the focus on some of them by means of discussion, introspection, and peer feedback.
This is perhaps the most important part of the syllabus: The workshop is built around student participation; I bring no slides and I aim to speak as little as possible. For it to be successful, I ask you to prepare for the workshop not superficially (i.e. briefly read the articles and skim through the questions), but to spend a few hours mindfully preparing the questions and articles mentioned in the PREPARATION section. During the workshop, how much you get out of it will depend largely on your engagement and active participation. I hope to convince you that these are some of the most interesting topics an academic will face in her career and considering them is no obligation, but the natural consequence of being a curious scientist.
Essential info: The page with information about the University’s Confidential Advisor, the regulations, and the Integrity Advisors can be found here: http://myuniversity.rug.nl/infonet/medewerkers/gezondheid-arbeidsomstandigheden/vertrouwenspersoon/
During the workshop we will largely focus on four topics: mentoring; misconduct; replication and questionable research practices; and openness in science. Certainly there are many others that merit attention and if there are some that are especially important to you, please let me know by email or during the workshop, so we may discuss them.
- Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, & Institute of Medicine. (2009). On being a scientist. A guide to responsible conduct in research (3rd ed.). Washington, D.C. http://graduateschool.nd.edu/assets/21763/on_being_a_scientist.pdf
- David Trafimow & Michael Marks (2015) Editorial, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 37:1, 1-2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2015.1012991
- Ben A. Barres (2013). How to pick a Graduate Advisor. Neuron, 80, 275-279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.10.005
- Kai J. Jonas & Joseph Cesario (2015) How can preregistration contribute to research in our field?, Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23743603.2015.1070611
- Levin, N. Open access, open data, open science…what does “openness” mean in the first place? http://somatosphere.net/2015/02/open-science.html
- Fanelli D. (2009) How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One. 2009 May 29;4(5):e5738. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005738
- Gunsalus, C. K. (1998). How to blow the Whistle and still have a career afterwards. Science and Engineering Ethics, 4(1), 51–64. http://link.springer.com.proxy-ub.rug.nl/article/10.1007/s11948-998-0007-0
- David B. Resnik J.D. Ph.D. & C. Neal Stewart Jr. Ph.D. (2012) Misconduct versus Honest Error and Scientific Disagreement, Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance, 19:1, 56-63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2012.650948
- Neaves, W. (2012) The roots of research misconduct. Nature 488, 121-122. http://www.nature.com.proxy-ub.rug.nl/naturejobs/science/articles/10.1038/nj7409-121a
- Van Noorden, R. (2013) Open access: The true cost of science publishing. http://www.nature.com.proxy-ub.rug.nl/news/open-access-the-true-cost-of-science-publishing-1.12676
- Understanding Open Access http://www.nature.com.proxy-ub.rug.nl/news/open-access-the-true-cost-of-science-publishing-1.12676
- Ohno-Machado, L. (2012) To Share or Not To Share: That Is Not the Question. http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/4/165/165cm15.short
- Gelman and Stern (2006) The Difference Between “Significant” and “Not Significant” is not Itself Statistically Significant. http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/signif4.pdf
- Wagenmakers, E.-J., & Forstmann, B. U. (2014). Rewarding high-power replication research. Cortex, 51, 105-106.
- Ioannidis, J.P.A. (2014) How to Make More Published Research True. http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001747
Chambers, C. D., Dienes, Z., McIntosh, R. D., Rotshtein, P., & Willmes, K. (2015). Registered Reports: Realigning incentives in scientific publishing. Cortex, 66, A1–A2. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2015.03.022
- Benjamin, J.L. et al (2017). Redefine Statistical Significance. Nature Human Behaviour, doi:10.1038/s41562-017-0189-z
- Lakens, D., Adolfi, F. G., Albers, C. J., Anvari, F., Apps, M. A. J., Argamon, S. E., … Zwaan, R. A. (2017, September 18). Justify Your Alpha: A Response to “Redefine Statistical Significance”. Retrieved from https://psyarxiv.com/9s3y6
Before coming to the workshop, please read:
- The 9 Circles of Scientific Hell (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2010/11/24/the-9-circles-of-scientific-hell/#.VHxDX9ayO8x) and consider whether you agree with the items as being unethical and the order they are presented in.
- What Kind of Research Science World Do We Want? (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.proxy-ub.rug.nl/doi/10.1002/9781119978862.ch13/summary) and consider what your roles in science and the ethics debates within it are.
- One (or more) of the articles in the TOPICS section
Choose ANY you find interesting or relevant.
Also, please spend some time considering the following questions:
- Why do you want to be a scientist?
- What was the most recent (or most difficult) ethical challenge you’ve faced so far in your academic career?
- How will scientific integrity be relevant to you in the next few steps in your career?
- How prevalent do you think scientific misconduct is?
- What do you think are the most common forms of misconduct (and why)?
Each of you will write a short (~750 words) reflection on a topic of your choice, which need not be limited to the topics listed above (other topics may be Peer Review, Participants and Informed Consent, Conflicts of Interest, etc.) You aim with this will not be to summarise a topic, but to reflect on how it may be relevant in your academic life, on your understanding of the possible resolution (if it is a dilemma or controversy), on its relative importance etc. You will be paired with another student and you will each provide comments on the other’s essay. This is not a graded essay, in that its aim isn’t to assess your knowledge of a topic. Rather, its intention is to give you the opportunity to read more about a topic of personal relevance or interest, construct your own thoughts on it, and receive the feedback of a peer.
The deadline for submitting the assignment is January 12th, 2017. Email those directly to me. Please include your name, student number, email address, and track on the cover page. When all assignments are sent to me, I will send each one to another student for comments.
- Integrity Factor (Useful, new interactive video from the RUG)*
- Roleplays and more: http://www.onlineethics.org/Topics/RespResearch/ResCases/RCRroleplays.aspx *
- Faking Science (Diederik Stapel’s book, translated in English)
- On Being a scientist *
- Rod King – The ethical conduct of scientific research
- A brief list of online ethics tutorials
- NIH science staff training
- The Lab – ORI, Dept of Health and Human Services
- Ethics Course – ORI, Dept of HHS
- Ethics in Science – Resources and essays
- Neal Stewart – Research Ethics for Scientists * free online here: http://dx.doi.org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1002/9781119978862
- APA Code of Conduct *
- RUG Research Ethics and Academic Integrity Committee *
- Video examples for consideration
- F1000 Open Research
- Peer Reviewers’ Openness Initiative
- The Open Science Framework
- A quick summary of Pizzagate
If you have questions about these or anything else, feel free to contact me (* means it’s especially valuable for this course).