The University and the Responsible Conduct of Research: Who is Responsible for What?
- 525 Downloads
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.
KeywordsResearch misconduct Responsible conduct of research Engineering graduate students ORI Falsification Intuition
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.
- 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
- Broad, W., & Wade, N. (1982). Betrayers of truth. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
- Millikan, R. A. (1950). The autobiography of Robert A. Millikan. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.