Main standards of scientific research

Scientists advise on ways to foster research integrity : shots - health news the national academy of sciences has toughened up its guidelines to call cutting corners, dubious statistics and not fully sharing research methods "detrimental" to scientists revamp standards to foster integrity in scientists revamp standards to foster integrity in scientists revamp standards to foster integrity in scientists revamp standards to foster integrity in 11, 20174:21 pm on morning new report from leading u. Scientists shines a spotlight on how the research enterprise as a whole creates incentives that can be detrimental to good essel nyc/getty essel nyc/getty new report from leading u. Scientists shines a spotlight on how the research enterprise as a whole creates incentives that can be detrimental to good essel nyc/getty 's been 25 years since the national academy of sciences set its standards for appropriate scientific conduct, and the world of science has changed dramatically in that time. The report published tuesday, "fostering integrity in research," shines a spotlight on how the research enterprise as a whole creates incentives that can be detrimental to good research. And it was increasingly clear that issues about proper conduct of research weren't isolated to individual labs, but influenced by a continuously evolving academic, publishing and funding environment. That work in mice often fail when tried in observation ultimately prompted the committee to recommend the creation of a research integrity advisory board. This nongovernmental board wouldn't punish bad actors, but it would help foster good research and help institutions respond better to issues as they arise. The focus of the 2017 report also shifts dramatically from the 1992 report, which emphasized individual cases of misconduct and questionable behavior, as opposed to the research enterprise as a whole. Gunsalus, who heads the national center for professional and research ethics at the university of illinois. We recognize there's a fuller range of behavior that we refer to as detrimental research practices. It's interesting since we're talking about research in science and engineering, which are fields that are data driven, that we have no data on this particular issue," nerem said. I don't think this is prevalent, but i think research misconduct and what we call in the report 'detrimental research practices' occur more often than any of us would like, and the research community has to step up to the plate to address this. The report sets out a series of recommendations designed to improve the integrity of science, including steps that universities can take to improve their standards and protect administration proposes big cuts in medical ists are called upon to share their data and methods as rapidly as possible. Still, the scientists behind this report remain committed to improving an enterprise that already provides a great deal of value to of research al academy of thanks our sponsorsbecome an npr sible science, volume i: ensuring the integrity of the research r: 2 scientific principles and research /10766 to get more information about this book, to buy it in print, or to download it as a free pdf. Principles and research the past decade, scientists, research institutions, and government agencies relied solely on a system of self-regulation based on shared ethical principles and generally accepted research practices to ensure integrity in the research process. These principles are at work in the fundamental elements of the scientific method, such as formulating a hypothesis, designing an experiment to test the hypothesis, and collecting and interpreting data. In addition, more particular principles characteristic of specific scientific disciplines influence the methods of observation; the acquisition, storage, management, and sharing of data; the communication of scientific knowledge and information; and the training of younger scientists. How these principles are applied varies considerably among the several scientific disciplines, different research organizations, and individual basic and particular principles that guide scientific research practices exist primarily in an unwritten code of ethics. As was pointed out in an early academy report on responsible conduct of research in ted citation:"2 scientific principles and research practices. Sciences, “a variety of informal and formal practices and procedures currently exist in the academic research environment to assure and maintain the high quality of research conduct” (iom, 1989a, p. Richard feynman invoked the informal approach to communicating the basic principles of science in his 1974 commencement address at the california institute of technology (feynman, 1985):[there is an] idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school—we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards. Scholars have noted the implicit nature and informal character of the processes that often guide scientific research practices and inference. Research in well-established fields of scientific knowledge, guided by commonly accepted theoretical paradigms and experimental methods, involves few disagreements about what is recognized as sound scientific evidence. Even in a revolutionary scientific field like molecular biology, students and trainees have learned the basic principles governing judgments made in such standardized procedures as cloning a new gene and determining its evaluating practices that guide research endeavors, it is important to consider the individual character of scientific fields. Research fields that yield highly replicable results, such as ordinary organic chemical structures, are quite different from fields such as cellular immunology, which are in a much earlier stage of development and accumulate much erroneous or uninterpretable material before the pieces fit together coherently. When a research field is too new or too fragmented to support consensual paradigms or established methods, different scientific practices can ted citation:"2 scientific principles and research practices. Verifiable facts always take ists operate within a system designed for continuous testing, where corrections and new findings are announced in refereed scientific publications. This is called the scientific idea that has not yet been sufficiently tested is called a hypothesis. Rigor in the testing of hypotheses is the heart of science, if no verifiable tests can be formulated, the idea is called an ad hoc hypothesis—one that is not fruitful; such hypotheses fail to stimulate research and are unlikely to advance scientific knowledge. They allow us to anticipate yet unknown phenomena and thus to focus research on more narrowly defined areas. A theory is a hypothesis that has gained wide acceptance because it has survived rigorous investigation of its ted citation:"2 scientific principles and research practices. Truly scientific understanding cannot be attained or even pursued effectively when explanations not derived from or tested by the scientific method are : national academy of sciences and national research council(1984), pp. In these moments, when scientists must cope with shifting concepts, the matter of what counts as scientific evidence can be subject to dispute. Historian jan sapp has described the complex interplay between theory and observation that characterizes the operation of scientific judgment in the selection of research data during revolutionary periods of paradigmatic shift (sapp, 1990, p. What counts as good evidence may be more or less well-defined after a new discipline or specialty is formed; however, at revolutionary stages in science, when new theories and techniques are being put forward, when standards have yet to be negotiated, scientists are less certain as to what others may require of them to be deemed competent and it statements of the values and traditions that guide research practice have evolved through the disciplines and have been given in textbooks on scientific methodologies. In the past few decades, many scientific and engineering societies representing individual disciplines have also adopted codes of ethics (see volume ii of this report for examples),5 and more recently, a few research institutions have developed guidelines for the conduct of research (see chapter 6). The responsibilities of the research community and research institutions in assuring individual compliance with scientific principles, traditions, and codes of ethics are not well defined. The absence of formal statements by research institutions of the principles that should guide research conducted by their members has prompted criticism that scientists and their institutions lack a clearly identifiable means to ensure the integrity of the research s affecting the development of research all of science, but with unequal emphasis in the several disciplines, inquiry proceeds based on observation and experimentation, the exercising of informed judgment, and the development of theory. Research practices are influenced by a variety of factors, including:The general norms of science;. Nature of particular scientific disciplines and the traditions of organizing a specific body of scientific knowledge;. Example of individual scientists, particularly those who hold positions of authority or respect based on scientific achievements;. Policies and procedures of research institutions and funding agencies; ly determined first three factors have been important in the evolution of modern science. A set of general norms are imbedded in the methods and the disciplines of science that guide individual, scientists in the organization and performance of their research efforts and that also provide a basis for nonscientists to understand and evaluate the performance of there is uncertainty about the extent to which individual scientists adhere to such norms. The strength of these influences, and the circumstances that may affect them, are not well a classic statement of the importance of scientific norms, robert merton specified four norms as essential for the effective functioning of science: communism (by which merton meant the communal sharing of ideas and findings), universalism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism (merton, 1973).

And the british physicist and sociologist of science john ziman, in an article synthesizing critiques of merton's formulation, has specified a set of structural factors in the bureaucratic and corporate research environment that impede the realization of that particular set of norms: the proprietary nature of research, the local importance and funding of research, the authoritarian role of the research manager, commissioned research, and the required expertise in understanding how to use modern instruments (ziman, 1990). Is clear that the specific influence of norms on the development of scientific research practices is simply not known and that further study of key determinants is required, both theoretically and empirically. Commonsense views, ideologies, and anecdotes will not support a conclusive dual scientific e comprises individual disciplines that reflect historical developments and the organization of natural and social phenomena for study. Social scientists may have methods for recording research data that differ from the methods of biologists, and scientists who depend on complex instrumentation may have authorship practices different from those of scientists who work in small groups or carry out field studies. Even within a discipline, experimentalists engage in research practices that differ from the procedures followed by lines are the “building blocks of science,” and they “designate the theories, problems, procedures, and solutions that are prescribed, proscribed, permitted, and preferred” (zuckerman, 1988a,Suggested citation:"2 scientific principles and research practices. The disciplines have traditionally provided the vital connections between scientific knowledge and its social organization. Scientific societies and scientific journals, some of which have tens of thousands of members and readers, and the peer review processes used by journals and research sponsors are visible forms of the social organization of the power of the disciplines to shape research practices and standards is derived from their ability to provide a common frame of reference in evaluating the significance of new discoveries and theories in science. It is the members of a discipline, for example, who determine what is “good biology” or “good physics” by examining the implications of new research results. The disciplines' abilities to influence research standards are affected by the subjective quality of peer review and the extent to which factors other than disciplinary quality may affect judgments about scientific achievements. These controls, such as social ostracism, the denial of letters of support for future employment, and the withholding of research resources, can deter and penalize unprofessional behavior within research scientific societies representing individual disciplines have adopted explicit standards in the form of codes of ethics or guidelines governing, for example, the editorial practices of their journals and other publications. In the past decade, the societies' codes of ethics—which historically have been exhortations to uphold high standards of professional behavior —have incorporated specific guidelines relevant to authorship practices, data management, training and mentoring, conflict of interest, reporting research findings, treatment of confidential or proprietary information, and addressing error or role of individual scientists and research methods by which individual scientists and students are socialized in the principles and traditions of science are poorly understood. 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 ted citation:"2 scientific principles and research practices. 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, 1990). 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 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 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 utional sities, 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. They are required, for example, “to foster a research environment that discourages misconduct in all research and that deals forthrightly with possible misconduct” (dhhs, 1989a, p. 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. In science and the subsequent enactment of governmental regulations, most major research institutions have now adopted policies and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in utional 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. Institutional policies can establish explicit standards that institutional officers then have the power to enforce with sanctions and utional 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 ment regulations and ment 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 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 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. The nsf policy acknowledges that grantee institutions will “keep principal rights to intellectual property conceived under nsf sponsorship” to encourage appropriate commercialization of the results of research (nsf, 1989b, p. However, the nsf policy emphasizes “that retention of such rights does not reduce the responsibility of researchers and 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. For example, nsf staff have commented, “unless we can arrange real returns or incentives for the original investigator, either in financial support or in professional recognition, another researcher's request for sharing is likely to present itself as ‘hassle'—an unwelcome nuisance and diversion. Therefore, we should hardly be surprised if researchers display some reluctance to share in practice, however much they may declare and genuinely feel devotion to the ideal of open scientific communication ” (nsf, 1989a, p. 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 g 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 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. Holton has argued, for example, that in selecting data ted citation:"2 scientific principles and research practices. But such practices, by today 's standards, would not be acceptable without reporting the justification for omission of recorded 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 discussing “the theory-ladenness of observations,” sapp (1990) observed the fundamental paradox that can exist in determining the “appropriateness” of data selection in certain experiments done in the past: scientists often craft their experiments so that the scientific problems and research subjects conform closely with the theory that they expect to verify or refute. Thus, in some cases, their observations may come closer to theoretical expectations than what might be statistically source of bias may be acceptable when it is influenced by scientific insight and judgment. 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 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:Data handling—acquisition, management, and storage;. Of errors; ch training and ly 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 ition and ific experiments and measurements are transformed into research data. The term “research data” applies to many different forms of scientific information, including raw numbers and field notes, machine tapes and notebooks, edited and categorized observations, interpretations and analyses, derived reagents and vectors, and tables, charts, slides, and ch data are the basis for reporting discoveries and experimental results. The general standard of practice is to provide information that is sufficiently complete so that another scientist can repeat or extend the 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). Thus, for example, applying scientific judgment to refine data and to remove spurious results ted citation:"2 scientific principles and research practices. 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 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 (1984); 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: researchers may be willing to exchange scientific data of possible economic significance without regard for financial or institutional implications, whereas their institutions may wish to establish intellectual property rights and obligations prior to any 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 1985 report sharing research data concluded that the general principle of data sharing is widely accepted, especially in the behavioral and social sciences (nrc, 1985). 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 exchange of research data and reagents is ideally governed by principles of collegiality and reciprocity: scientists often distribute reagents with the hope that the recipient will reciprocate in the future, and some give materials out freely with no stipulations attached. 12 scientists who repeatedly or flagrantly deviate from the tradition of sharing become known to their peers and may ted citation:"2 scientific principles and research practices. Such cases may be well known to senior research investigators, but they are not well scientists may share materials as part of a collaborative agreement in exchange for co-authorship on resulting publications. 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. As more academic research is being supported under proprietary agreements, researchers and institutions are experiencing the effects of these arrangements on research mental 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, 1987; nsf, 1989b). 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. 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 ns 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 ted citation:"2 scientific principles and research practices. 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 utional 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. A few universities have also considered the creation of central storage repositories for all primary data collected by their research investigators. 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 the academic environment, however, centralized research records raise complex problems of ownership, control, and access. 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. But much investigator-initiated research is not suitable for random data audits because of the exploratory nature of basic or discovery 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 ted citation:"2 scientific principles and research practices. 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 es 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. 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 ication and ists communicate research results by a variety of formal and informal means. Although research publications continue to document research findings, the appearance of electronic publications and other information technologies heralds change. 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 ship of original research reports is an important indicator of accomplishment, priority, and prestige within the scientific community. Authorship practices are guided by disciplinary traditions, customary practices within research groups, and professional and journal standards and policies.

There is general acceptance of the principle that each named author has made a significant intellectual contribution to the paper, even though there remains substantial disagreement over the types of contributions that are judged to be significant. The extent of participation in these four activities required for authorship varies across journals, disciplines, and research groups. Some research leaders have a custom of including their own names in any paper issuing from their laboratory, although this practice is increasingly discouraged. Specialized” authorship may also result from demands that co-authorship be given as a condition of sharing a unique research reagent or selected data that do not constitute a major contribution—demands that many scientists believe are inappropriate. 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 riate 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 ted citation:"2 scientific principles and research practices. 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. 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 described in honor in science, plagiarism can take many forms: at one extreme is the exact replication of another's writing without appropriate attribution (sigma xi, 1986). 20 the importance of recognition for one's intellectual abilities in science demands high standards of accuracy and diligence in ensuring appropriate recognition for the work of misuse of privileged information may be less clear-cut because it does not involve published work. Other problems related to authorship include overspecialization, overemphasis on short-term projects, and the organization of research communication around the “least publishable unit. In a research system that rewards quantity at the expense of quality and favors speed over attention to detail (the effects of “publish or perish”), scientists who wait until their research data are complete before releasing them for publication may be at a disadvantage. Others have placed greater emphasis on major contributions as the basis for evaluating research gatekeepers of scientific journals, editors are expected to use good judgment and fairness in selecting papers for publication. Some institutions, including the national library of medicine and professional societies that represent editors of scientific journals, are exploring the development of standards relevant to these obligations (bailar et al. Editors often request written assurances that research reported conforms to all appropriate guidelines involving human or animal subjects, materials of human origin, or recombinant theory, editors set standards of authorship for their journals. For example, the new england journal of medicine has established a category of prohibited contributions from authors engaged in for-profit ventures: the journal will not ted citation:"2 scientific principles and research practices. Peer review is also used by funding agencies to seek advice concerning the quality and promise of proposals for research support. The proliferation of research journals and the rewards associated with publication and with obtaining research grants have put substantial stress on the peer review system. Reviewers for journals or research agencies receive privileged information and must exert great care to avoid sharing such information with colleagues or allowing it to enter their own work gh the system of peer review is generally effective, it has been suggested that the quality of refereeing has declined, that self-interest has crept into the review process, and that some journal editors and reviewers exert inappropriate influence on the type of work they deem some level, all scientific reports, even those that mark profound advances, contain errors of fact or interpretation. In part, such errors reflect uncertainties intrinsic to the research process itself —a hypothesis is formulated, an experimental test is devised, and based on the interpretation of the results, the hypothesis is refined, revised, or discarded. In biology, for example, a given phenomenon is examined in only one or a few among millions of organismal ted citation:"2 scientific principles and research practices. Design—a product of the background and expertise of the retation and speculation regarding the significance of the findings—judgments that depend on expert knowledge, experience, and the insightfulness and boldness of the in this context, errors are an integral aspect of progress in attaining scientific knowledge. In addition, however, erroneous information can also reach the scientific literature as a consequence of misconduct in becomes of these errors or incorrect interpretations? Much has been made of the concept that science is “self-correcting”—that errors, whether honest or products of misconduct, will be exposed in future experiments because scientific truth is founded on the principle that results must be verifiable and reproducible. This implies that errors will generally not long confound the direction of thinking or experimentation in actively pursued areas of research. However, each experiment is based on conclusions from prior studies; repeated failure of the experiment eventually calls into question those conclusions and leads to reevaluation of the measurements, generality, design, and interpretation of the earlier publication of a scientific report provides an opportunity for the community at large to critique and build on the substance of the report, and serves as one stage at which errors and misinterpretations can be detected and corrected. It is by this process of examination and reexamination that science research endeavor can therefore be viewed as a two-tiered process: first, hypotheses are formulated, tested, and modified; second, results and conclusions are reevaluated in the course of additional study. The scientific community in general adheres strongly to this principle, but practical constraints exist as a result of the availability of specialized instrumentation, research materials, and expert personnel. Other forces, such as competition, commercial interest, funding trends and availability, or pressure to publish may also erode the role of replication as a mechanism for fostering integrity in the research process. And demands rigorous evaluation and reevaluation of every key greater complexity is encountered when an investigator in one research group is unable to confirm the published findings of another. In any case, such questions about a published finding usually provoke the initial investigator to attempt to reconfirm the original result, or to pursue additional studies that support and extend the original accordance with established principles of science, scientists have the responsibility to replicate and reconfirm their results as a normal part of the research process. The cycles of theoretical and methodological formulation, testing, and reevaluation, both within and between laboratories, produce an ongoing process of revision and refinement that corrects errors and strengthens the fabric of ch training and panel defined a mentor as that person directly responsible for the professional development of a research trainee. Professional development includes both technical training, such as instruction in the methods of scientific research (e. Research design, instrument use, and selection of research questions and data), and socialization in basic research practices (e. Aspects of relationship of the mentor and research trainee is usually characterized by extraordinary mutual commitment and personal involvement. A mentor, as a research advisor, is generally expected to supervise the work of the trainee and ensure that the trainee's research is completed in a sound, honest, and timely manner. The ideal mentor challenges the trainee, spurs the trainee to higher scientific achievement, and helps socialize the trainee into the ted citation:"2 scientific principles and research practices. One mentor has written that his “research group is like an extended family or small tribe, dependent on one another, but led by the mentor, who acts as their consultant, critic, judge, advisor, and scientific father” (cram, 1989, p. In some research fields, for example, concerns are being raised about how the increasing size and diverse composition of research groups affect the quality of the relationship between trainee and mentor. As the size of research laboratories expands, the quality of the training environment is at risk (cgs, 1990a). Laboratories may provide valuable instrumentation and access to unique research skills and resources as well as an opportunity to work in pioneering fields of science. But as only one contribution to the efforts of a large research team, a graduate student's work may become highly specialized, leading to a narrowing of experience and greater dependency on senior personnel; in a period when the availability of funding may limit research opportunities, laboratory heads may find it necessary to balance research decisions for the good of the team against the individual educational interests of each trainee. Moreover, the demands of obtaining sufficient resources to maintain a laboratory in the contemporary research environment often separate faculty from their trainees. When laboratory heads fail to participate in the everyday workings of the laboratory—even for the most beneficent of reasons, such as finding funds to support young investigators—their inattention may harm their trainees' ted citation:"2 scientific principles and research practices.

The size of a research group can influence the quality of mentorship, the more important issues are the level of supervision received by trainees, the degree of independence that is appropriate for the trainees' experience and interests, and the allocation of credit for achievements that are accomplished by groups composed of individuals with different status. These factors may affect the ability of research mentors to transmit the methods and ethical principles according to which research should be ms also arise when faculty members are not directly rewarded for their graduate teaching or training skills. Although faculty may receive indirect rewards from the contributions of well-trained graduate students to their own research as well as the satisfaction of seeing their students excelling elsewhere, these rewards may not be sufficiently significant in tenure or promotion decisions. When institutional policies fail to recognize and reward the value of good teaching and mentorship, the pressures to maintain stable funding for research teams in a competitive environment can overwhelm the time allocated to teaching and mentorship by a single increasing duration of the training period in many research fields is another source of concern, particularly when it prolongs the dependent status of the junior investigator. Years in anthropology and ts, research associates, and faculty are currently raising various questions about the rights and obligations of trainees. Sexist behavior by some research directors and other senior scientists is a particular source of concern. Another significant concern is that research trainees may be subject to exploitation because of their subordinate status in the research laboratory, particularly when their income, access to research resources, and future recommendations are dependent on the goodwill of the mentor. Foreign students and postdoctoral fellows may be especially vulnerable, since their immigration status often depends on continuation of a research relationship with the selected lities between mentor and trainee can exacerbate ordinary conflicts such as the distribution of credit or blame for research error (nas, 1989). Mentorship y, mentors and trainees should select each other with an eye toward scientific merit, intellectual and personal compatibility, and other relevant factors. But this situation operates only under conditions of freely available information and unconstrained choice —conditions that usually do not exist in academic research groups. The trainee may choose to work with a faculty member based solely on criteria of patronage, perceived influence, or ability to provide financial mentors may be well known and highly regarded within their research communities and institutions. Poor mentorship practices may be self-correcting over time, if students can detect and avoid research groups characterized by disturbing practices. However, individual trainees who experience abusive relationships with a mentor may discover only too late that the practices that constitute the abuse were well known but were not disclosed to new is common practice for a graduate student to be supervised not only by an individual mentor but also by a committee that represents the graduate department or research field of the student. In order to foster good mentorship practices for all research trainees, many groups and institutions have taken steps to clarify the nature of individual and institutional responsibilities in the mentor–trainee gs and self-regulatory system that characterizes the research process has evolved from a diverse set of principles, traditions, standards, and customs transmitted from senior scientists, research directors, and department chairs to younger scientists by example, discussion, and informal education. Methods and techniques of experimentation, styles of communicating findings,Suggested citation:"2 scientific principles and research practices. Relationship between theory and experimentation, and laboratory groupings for research and for training vary with the particular scientific disciplines. Ideally, research practices reflect the values of the wider research community and also embody the practical skills needed to conduct scientific cing scientists are guided by the principles of science and the standard practices of their particular scientific discipline as well as their personal moral principles. For example, loyalty to one's group of colleagues can be in conflict with the need to correct or report an abuse of scientific practice on the part of a member of that e scientists and the achievements of science have earned the respect of society at large, the behavior of scientists must accord not only with the expectations of scientific colleagues, but also with those of a larger community. As science becomes more closely linked to economic and political objectives, the processes by which scientists formulate and adhere to responsible research practices will be subject to increasing public scrutiny. This is one reason for scientists and research institutions to clarify and strengthen the methods by which they foster responsible research ingly, the panel emphasizes the following conclusions:The panel believes that the existing self-regulatory system in science is sound. But modifications are necessary to foster integrity in a changing research environment, to handle cases of misconduct in science, and to discourage questionable research dual scientists have a fundamental responsibility to ensure that their results are reproducible, that their research is reported thoroughly enough so that results are reproducible, and that significant errors are corrected when they are recognized. Editors of scientific journals share these last two ch mentors, laboratory directors, department heads, and senior faculty are responsible for defining, explaining, exemplifying, and requiring adherence to the value systems of their institutions. The neglect of sound training in a mentor's laboratory will over time compromise the integrity of the research strative officials within the research institution also bear responsibility for ensuring that good scientific practices are observed in units of appropriate jurisdiction and that balanced reward systems appropriately recognize research quality, integrity, teaching, and mentorship. Adherence to scientific principles and disciplinary standards is at the root of a vital and productive research ted citation:"2 scientific principles and research practices. Present, scientific principles are passed on to trainees primarily by example and discussion, including training in customary practices. Most research institutions do not have explicit programs of instruction and discussion to foster responsible research practices, but the communication of values and traditions is critical to fostering responsible research practices and detering misconduct in s to foster responsible research practices in areas such as data handling, communication and publication, and research training and mentorship deserve encouragement by the entire research community. For a somewhat dated review of codes of ethics adopted by the scientific and engineering societies, see chalk et al. The discussion in this section is derived from mark frankel's background paper, “professional societies and responsible research conduct,” included in volume ii of this report. For a full discussion of the roles of scientific societies in fostering responsible research practices, see the background paper prepared by mark frankel, “professional societies and responsible research conduct,” in volume ii of this report. Selected examples of academic research conduct policies and guidelines are included in volume ii of this report. See, for example, holton's response to the criticisms of millikan in chapter 12 of thematic origins of scientific thought (holton, 1988). Much of the discussion in this section is derived from a background paper, “reflections on the current state of data and reagent exchange among biomedical researchers,” prepared by robert weinberg and included in volume ii of this report. Note that these general guidelines exclude the provision of reagents or facilities or the supervision of research as a criteria of authorship. In the past, scientific papers often included a special note by a named researcher, not a co-author of the paper, who described, for example, a particular substance or procedure in a footnote or appendix. The strength of theories as sources of the formulation of scientific laws and predictive power varies among different fields of science. A copy of the full paper, “mentorship and the research training experience,” is included in volume ii of this report. Some universities have written guidelines for the supervision or mentorship of trainees as part of their institutional research policy guidelines (see, for example, the guidelines adopted by harvard university and the university of michigan that are included in volume ii of this report). Departmental mentorship awards (comparable to teaching or research prizes) can recognize, encourage, and enhance ted citation:"2 scientific principles and research practices. For other discussions on mentorship, see the paper by david guston in volume ii of this group convened by the institute of medicine has suggested “that the university has a responsibility to ensure that the size of a research unit does not outstrip the mentor's ability to maintain adequate supervision” (iom, 1989a, p. Others have noted that although it may be desirable to limit the number of trainees assigned to a senior investigator, there is insufficient information at this time to suggest that numbers alone significantly affect the quality of research supervision (iom, 1989a, p. Science, volume i: ensuring the integrity of the research paperback | $ members save 10% or register to save! Science is a comprehensive review of factors that influence the integrity of the research process. Volume i examines reports on the incidence of misconduct in science and reviews institutional and governmental efforts to handle cases of result of a two-year study by a panel of experts convened by the national academy of sciences, this book critically analyzes the impact of today's research environment on the traditional checks and balances that foster integrity in sible science is a provocative examination of the role of educational efforts; research guidelines; and the contributions of individual scientists, mentors, and institutional officials in encouraging responsible research 're looking at openbook, 's online reading room since 1999. Of diversity and arency and funding opportunities es and ormative on of materials -nist interaction in basic and applied scientific research in bio, eng & information about the participating nist laboratories contact:jason boehm, director, program coordination office, national institute of standards and technology, 100 bureau drive, ms 1060, gaithersburg, md 20899-1060 usa. Please be advised that, the specified due date, the guidelines contained in nsf 17-1 may apply to proposals submitted in response to ment accepted dear colleague letter is intended to facilitate interactions between principal investigators (pis), co-pis, post-doctoral scholars and both undergraduate and graduate students supported by the national science foundation (nsf) and scientists and engineers at the national institute of standards and technology's (nist).

Nist operates a vast array of instruments and measurement systems, both commercial equipment and specialized tools developed by nist researchers. Researchers from industry, academia, and non-profit organizations interested in working collaboratively with nist researchers on projects of mutual interest may access these systems as part of that research. Supplemental support to existing nsf awards may be requested to allow pis, co-pis, post-doctoral scholars and both undergraduate and graduate students on these awards to participate in such collaborative research at ering sciences for modeling and simulation-based life-cycle engineering and /fda scholar-in-residence at rships with undergraduate research fellowship (surf) program at has been funded (recent awards made through this program, with abstracts).