Advertisement

Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 447–457 | Cite as

The University and the Responsible Conduct of Research: Who is Responsible for What?

  • Katherine Alfredo
  • Hillary HartEmail author
Article

Abstract

Research misconduct has been thoroughly discussed in the literature, but mainly in terms of definitions and prescriptions for proper conduct. Even when case studies are cited, they are generally used as a repository of “lessons learned.” What has been lacking from this conversation is how the lessons of responsible conduct of research are imparted in the first place to graduate students, especially those in technical fields such as engineering. Nor has there been much conversation about who is responsible for what in training students in Responsible Conduct of Research or in allocating blame in cases of misconduct. This paper explores three seemingly disparate cases of misconduct—the 2004 plagiarism scandal at Ohio University; the famous Robert Millikan article of 1913, in which his reported data selection did not match his notebooks; and the 1990 fabrication scandal in Dr. Leroy Hood’s research lab. Comparing these cases provides a way to look at the relationship between the graduate student (or trainee) and his/her advisor (a relationship that has been shown to be the most influential one for the student) as well as at possibly differential treatment for established researchers and researchers-in-training, in cases of misconduct. This paper reflects on the rights and responsibilities of research advisers and their students and offers suggestions for clarifying both those responsibilities and the particularly murky areas of research-conduct guidelines.

Keywords

Research misconduct Responsible conduct of research Engineering graduate students ORI Falsification Intuition 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the National Science Foundation for their support (Grant 0629475) of the literature review reported here; a review has become the basis of our ongoing original research. We would also like to acknowledge the wonderful work of the other two co-PIs on that grant, Steven Nichols and Christy Moore, as well as graduate research assistant Tom Benton.

References

  1. Babbage, C. (1830). Reflections on the decline of science in England and some of its causes. On the frauds of observers (pp. 174–183). London: B. Fellowes.Google Scholar
  2. Bird, S. J. (2001). Mentors, advisors and supervisors: Their role in teaching responsible research conduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7, 455–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Broad, W., & Wade, N. (1982). Betrayers of truth. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  4. Davis, M. S., Riske-Morris, M., & Diaz, S. R. (2007). Casual factors implicated in research misconduct: Evidence from ORI case studies. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13, 395–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fleischmann, S. T. (2004). Essential ethics—embedding ethics into an engineering curriculum. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10, 369–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Friedman, P. J. (1996). An introduction to research ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2, 443–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Garte, S. J. (1995). Guidelines for training in the ethical conduct of scientific research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 1, 59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Guston, D. H. (1999). Changing explanatory frameworks in the U.S. Government’s attempt to define research misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 5, 137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hillman, H. (1995). Honest research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 1, 49–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hollander, R. D. (2001). Mentoring and ethical beliefs in graduate education in science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7, 521–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jennings, R. C. (2004). Data selection and responsible conduct: Was Millikan a fraud? Science and Engineering Ethics, 10, 639–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lau, A. S. (2004). Teaching engineering ethics to first-year college students. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10, 359–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McGinn, R. E. (2003). Mind the gaps: An empirical approach to engineering ethics, 1997–2001. Science and Engineering Ethics, 9, 517–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Millikan, R. A. (1913). On the elementary electrical charge and the Avogadro content. Physical Review, 2(2), 109–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Millikan, R. A. (1950). The autobiography of Robert A. Millikan. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
  16. Moore, C., Hart, H., Randall, D., & Nichols, S. (2006). PRiME: Integrating professional responsibility into the engineering curriculum. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12, 273–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. National Science Foundation. (2009). Grant proposal guide Chapter II, Section C2 (j) special information and supplementary documentation. Proposal and award policies and procedures guide. April 2009. Retrieved from www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf09_29/index.jsp.
  18. National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources and Statistics. (2008). Science and engineering degrees: 1966–2006. Detailed statistical tables NSF 08-321. Arlington, VA. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf08321.
  19. Newberry, B. (2004). The dilemma of ethics in engineering education. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10, 343–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Niaz, M. (2000). The oil drop experiment: A rational reconstruction of the Millikan-Enhrenhaft controversy and its implications for chemistry textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 408–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Parrish, D. M. (2004). Scientific misconduct and findings against graduate and medical students. Science and Engineering Ethics, 3, 483–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pascal, C. B. (1999). The history and future of the Office of Research Integrity: Scientific misconduct and beyond. Science and Engineering Ethics, 5, 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rabins, M. J. (1998). Teaching engineering ethics to undergraduates: Why? What? How? Science and Engineering Ethics, 4, 291–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Roberts, L. (1991). Misconduct: Caltech’s trial by fire. Science, 253(5026), 1344–1347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Roberts, G. C., Kavussanu, M., & Sprague, R. L. (2001). Mentoring and the impact of the research climate. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7, 525–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Segerstrale, U. (1995). Good to the last drop? Millikan stories as “Canned” pedagogy. Science and Engineering Ethics, 3, 197–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sprague, R. L., Daw, J., & Glyn, C. R. (2001). Influences on the ethical beliefs of the graduate students concerning research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7, 507–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tomsho, R. (2006). Familiar words: Student plagiarism stirs controversy at Ohio University. The Wall Street Journal, 15 Aug 2006. PDF available at http://www.utsystem.edu/news/clips/dailyclips/2006/0813-0819/UTAustin-WSJ-OHIO-081506.pdf.
  29. Whitbeck, C. (1995). Truth and trustworthiness in research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 4, 403–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Whitbeck, C. (2004). Trust and the future of research. Physics Today, 11, 48–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wright, D. E., Titus, S. L., & Cornelison, J. B. (2008). Mentoring and research misconduct: An analysis of research mentoring in closed ORI cases. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14, 323–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental EngineeringThe University of TexasAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations