On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research: Third Edition

“On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research” by the Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy; National Academies Press, © 2009, 63 pages, softcover. This is a useful publication produced to address the growing awareness of misconduct in science, but it is short and incomplete. The Preface is clear about science being built on a foundation of trust. This short guide can only provide an overview of professional standards of science. By far, its greatest strength is a series of hypothetical scenarios in boxes. In contrast to the larger “Integrity in Scientific Research: Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct” by the IoM/NRC (© 2002) that places all reliance on courses on science integrity, this booklet states: “...assimilation of professional standards through experience remains vitally important.” Learning from veteran research mentors is indeed the best way to continue solid science as the issues become more complex as the new sciences become more complex. However, there is also an appeal that “...every researcher has a solid grounding in the professional codes of science” while there is no acknowledgment that there is a continuous edge of research without specific codes, nor that codes in and of themselves are often not adequate. Therefore, it is good that in “A Note on Using ‘On Being a Scientist’” they state “collective deliberation is an equally good way to explore how professional standards influence research” and it is recognized that single seminars or web-based tutorials are inadequate. “Responsible conduct is an essential part of good research and should not be separated from the rest of the curriculum.” The contents are not divided into chapters but into topic headers with explanations mostly running 2-4 pages in lengths. “Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research” points out three obligations of researchers and ends with definitions of terms. Definitions are always important to any solid discussion. “Advising and Mentoring” discusses the roles of advisor and advisee, mentor and mentee. The first block discussion poses a related hypothetical, when an advisor disagrees with an advisee’s change in research. There is a clear statement that “institutions must promote good advising and mentoring by rewarding individuals who exhibit these skills...” but I have yet to hear of any research university that is paying attention to anything but SCI/IF bibliometrics. Advising and mentoring, along with teaching, are being ignored. In “Treatment of Data,” there is a rare and very important but often overlooked statement: “...researchers have a fundamental obligation to create and maintain an accurate, accessible, and PERMANENT record of what they have done in sufficient detail for others to check an replicate their work.” [my caps]. However, the world community of scientists has essentially ignored this issue of archive permanence in spite of the warning by Dellavalle et al. in their Science article “Going, going, gone...” that indicate that ten percent of research URLs are lost every 15 months when it is only online. This report continues: “Because digital technologies are rapidly changing, some data stored electronically may be inaccessible in a few years unless provisions are made to transport the data from one platform to another.” A box provides an interesting dilemma in selection of data. “Mistakes and Negligence” address both honest errors and mistakes caused by negligence, and the need for an erratum or retraction. One box in this section describes an astronomer’s mistaken interpretation of the Milky Way and a second box poses the question of what to do when researchers discover an error. “Research misconduct” moves to the standard defined fabrication, falsification and plagiarism examples as defined by the U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy at the time. Boxes here include a case of 1) breach of trust, 2) fabrication in a grant proposal and 3) discerning is it plagiarism? “Responding to Suspected Violations of Professional Standards” ruminates on how “scientists and their institutions should act to discourage questionable research practices (QRPs)....” I will admit that my perspective about mentors and supervisors needing to wash junior scientists and graduate students from the science program when they demonstrate they are “bad eggs,” this is perhaps too black-and-white a distinction and the boxes in this booklet do relate the nuanced situations that occur. Here a box describes the Hwang Woo-Suk fraud concerning human cloning that passed peer review and was published in the journal Science, and how the journal dealt with this. This booklet does not note research that shows that most scientists will not detect a retraction and will continue to cite retracted articles, so it becomes ever more important that bad research is caught before it is ever published, and also that peer-reviewed publication remain the venue for final papers and the practice of utilizing pre-publication venue might do serious damage to the science communication process. Another box discusses a dilemma faced by a candidate a few months away from completing his dissertation who discovers potential misconduct by a fellow student that could derail his own degree. “Human Participants and Animal Subjects in Research” now varies into an area that is dependent upon cultural values that vary around the world, rather than science procedures that are universal, but this distinction is never made. The federal regulations known as the Common Rule are described along with the role of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). A box provides a potential research proposal involving testing students and asks if this needs IRB approval. The Animal Welfare Act and the role of animal care and use committees (ACUCs or IACUCs) is briefly but inadequately described. Only one page is devoted to “Laboratory Safety in Research.” Having served as biosafety office for my department for over a decade, I find that there is far greater need for respect from professors for knowledge on HAZMAT issues than are usually provided. However, in some ways, this page is not really a bioethical issue and is not needed in this booklet. “Sharing of Research Results” belongs in this book, and notes that “the first to publish a view or finding—not the first to discover it—tends to get most of the credit for the discovery.” This needs to be modified, to “the first person to publish a discovery in English” insofar as far too often, American and other English-speaking Western researchers ignore literature in other languages. And this “language imperialism” [my term] is directly due to university requirements to learn a second language being dropped from doctoral programs circa 1970. Here the box “The Race to Publish” provides a real case of a dispute in organocatalysis and published in C&E News. This booklet many times refers to the emerging “new communication methods” that may change publication practices. Reviewing this booklet from the vantage point of a decade later, the new methods have only served to introduce even more potential for fraud, loss of research and competitive pressure. A box describes a case of one comprehensive publication versus two partial studies. Another box discusses the problem of research that cannot be freely distributed due to military applications or commercial intellectual property rights. “Authorship and the Allocation of Credit” states that different journals may provide guidelines. But while this booklet cites the 1986 “Honor in Science” publication by Sigma Xi for an item in its first section, it does not include this very important “cure-all” for authorship in that publication, of merely having an “attribution” statement where “Smith gathered the data, Jones wrote the analysis and Brown fed the animals.” That clarifies the roles and likewise ends honorary and ghost authorships, not discussed here. Two boxes pose problems in this area. “Intellectual Property” briefly describes the difference between patent and copyright, and the limitations of copyright and the use of fair use. One box poses the dilemma of commercial opportunities and makes assumptions that research will be at universities that will also have technology transfer offices. “Competing Interests, Commitments, and Values” stays within the Western cultural set of values and laws. A box poses “A Conflict of Interest” and another discusses the source of research funding and possible influence on findings. “The Researcher in Society” does acknowledge the extension of science standards into societal standards, although it could have gone much further to the German experiments on Jews during WWII. One box details the case of Agent Orange, used in Vietnam for controlling vegetation cover and then discovered to be very toxic. This is much better elaborated with far more analysis as a “dual use” in Judi Sture’s “The Ethics and Biosecurity Toolkit for Scientists,” World Scientific, © 2017, softcover. The Appendix then goes box by box with further discussion of those 12 case studies. Seven pages of additional resources are also cited, section by section. There is no index.

The book is written in short chapters with quick case studies to highlight administrative/ logistics concerns in the field of research/publishing papers/thesis/dissertation. Quick reference to how to give authorship credits, laws and ethical handling of human and animal subjects, intellectual property, etc. I would recommend this to all master's and higher levels students. Undergraduate students would benefit too, but most undergraduate work is not as complicated, administratively, as graduate and beyond. Nevertheless, a quick and easy read, and you can just reference the portion you need...no need to read the entire book.

This book offers an entrance into the field of science for those that do not have an understanding of what it means to think scientifically. While I would not recommend this book to scientists at any level, I would recommend it to individuals who want to take the first steps into a different way of looking at the world.The only negative aspect I have of this book, which some may like, is that it does not critically approach the culture of science. While this is effective at introducing people into the cultural aspect of science in America in specific and western science in general, it fails to look scientifically at the culture of science. It has a role, which it serves well, so long as you understand what that role is.

This short read covers a rather broad spectrum of ethical issues in both academia and research. The author introduces different areas of responsibility held by students, advisers, and researchers. He points out where conflicts might exist. At the end of each short essay, he introduces an ethical dilemma scenario. Most of these scenarios resulted in my understanding there is not always a clear answer, or even a clear resolution process when challenging situations arise.This book helped me to understand that there are important understandings to be discussed before and during a doctoral pursuit. I'm glad I read it before I interview for programs.

Great book. Sound advices. Good thought-provoking questions.Be aware that the boxes on the text doesn't render well on Kindle itself.Let's hope they fix this on another edition and allow us to download the corrected version.I had to read it on Kindle Reader for PC not to lose information about the examples it uses to clarify the many ways one can be irresponsible.

An not sure how to rate this book, I have a love and hate relationship with it. I found some useful information in it and I thought some other information could have been more simplified. In all, it's still a good book.

I bought this book because I had a course as a Math major that required me to write a thesis; however, the book was written nicely, it just did not apply to how I would be going about my research.

Well written and accessible. This is the print version of a book which is available free online, but I prefer reading on paper pages. The cost is literally the price to print, bind, and ship these things.

This is a very short book, more of a long pamphlet really, on the ethical responsibilities of scientists. It introduces these responsibilities in terms of the expected conduct of scientists and the trust placed in them by fellow scientists and the public. Effects of failure to uphold these conduct standards echo with warnings of repercussions in medicine / human health from drug trials and dire consequences for the careers of those who are 'found out'. There are then case studies and examples that could be used with students. It could form a helpful part of MSc level / PhD introductory courses.