Printer friendly

What does BREB stand for?

BREB stands for Biomedical Research Ethics Board


This definition appears very rarely

Other Resources: Acronym Finder has 4 verified definitions for BREB

Samples in periodicals archive:

This resource is to help students and researchers in the sciences find introductory materials and resources covering a wide range of ethical issues in research. The following guide is divided by major type of material and subject area.We have also developed a guide for IIT students in Galvin Library's Research Guides.General ResourcesEthics CentersCases - Collections of cases and information on famous science misconduct casesCodes of Ethics JournalsResources by TopicGeneral Readings in Scientific EthicsAnimal Research SubjectsAuthorshipConflict of InterestData Integrity and ManagementHuman Research Participants MentoringPlagiarismResearch MisconductWhistleblowingWomen and Underrepresented Groups in ResearchOther Topics Research Ethics Centers:Office of Research Integrity of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services includes educational resources on responsible conduct of research, U.S. legislation, guidelines governing federally funded research, and reports and news summaries of national and international misconduct cases.Online Ethics Center: maintained by the National Academy of Engineering, the Center includes a library of cases, online modules, and articles on ethics in the sciences.National Reference Center for Bioethics Literature at Kennedy Institute of Ethics - focusing on of bioethics, the library of this center maintains one of the largest online bibliographies dealing with all aspects of bioethics, such as medical ethics and research involving human and animal participants.RCREC - a well-chosen set of materials and cases on the major topics of responsible conduct of research. Maintained by the Responsible Conduct of Research Education Committee of the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics.Cases:Ethics Education Library- a collection of case studies searchable by topic contained in the EEL. Maintained by CSEP.Graduate Research Ethics: Cases and Commentaries: a collection of case studies developed by graduate and post-doc students who took part in workshops on graduate research education. Case studies cover topics ranging from human research participants to authorship, and each case is accompanied by expert commentaries.Moral Reasoning in Scientific Research: Cases for Teaching and Assessment - Materials developed by Muriel Bebeau for "Teaching Research Ethics: A Workshop at Indiana University" (TRE). December 1995. Download full PDF document here.Handling Misconduct, Case Summaries –United States Office of Research Integrity. Listing of investigated and closed scientific misconduct cases.Famous Cases Baltimore Case (1984-1996)In the summer of 1995, Margaret O’Toole, a post doctorate fellow at MIT, was asked by her supervisor Dr. Imanishi-Kari to do experiments that would extend the work described in a paper that had been published in the Journal Cell. Unable to repeat aspects of the research documented in this paper, O’Toole came across a laboratory notebook that suggested to her that the Cell study was wrong. Before too long, O’Toole came to believe that the errors in the paper were deliberate. She then challenged the authors of the paper, including the Nobel Prize winner David Baltimore. A long investigation followed, during which the National Institutes of Health, and members of Congress became involved. During the investigation, Baltimore was forced to resign as president of Rockefeller University, in part because of his spirited defense of Dr. Imanishi-Kari. Dr. Imanishi-Kari was first found guilty of 19 counts of research misconduct, but was later cleared of all misconduct charges in 1996 by a Human Health and Services appeals panel. Kevles, Daniel J. The Baltimore Case: A Trial of Politics, Science, and Character. New York: W.W. Norton, 1998. (Available through interlibrary loan.)A book-length analysis of the case documenting the notorious legal proceedings of the case. Kevles takes a sympathetic view of Dr. Imanishi-Kari, and uses the case to show how science is less an assertion of truth then an ongoing dialogue between scientists.Lang, Serge. “Questions of Scientific Responsibility: The Baltimore Case” Ethics & Behavior. 3.1 (January 1993) 3-73. (Available through Galvin Library Journal Holdings.) An extremely detailed case study that first gives an historical account of the case, and then uses it to discuss the responsibilities of scientists conducting research, both for themselves, their colleagues, and the public at large. New York Times Archive– Collection of articles appearing in the NY Times from 1984-1998, including articles written by Margaret O’Toole, and an interview with Dr. Imanishi-Kari.Bell Laboratories (2001-2002)After publishing a paper in Nature announcing he had produced a transistor on the molecular scale, Jan Hendrik Schön, a physicist at Bell Laboratories, was accused of scientific fraud when members of the physics community found anomalies in his data. When a committee appointed by Bell Laboratories requested copies of his raw data, it was found that Schön kept no lab notebooks and all related files had been discarded or deleted from his computer. Schön was fired from Bell Laboratories and his papers were withdrawn from the journals Nature, Science, and Physical Review.Consoli, Luca. “Scientific Misconduct and Science Ethics: a case study based approach.” Science and Engineering Ethics 12.3 (July 2006) 533-541. (Available through Galvin Library Journal Holdings)Article looks at the case of the physicist Jan Hendrik Schön of Bell Lavatories, who used falsified data in numerous published research papers. The author looks at the report of the official committee charged with the investigation, and highlights how the daily practice of science is plagued by chronic problems that have serious consequences for how scientists assess their work, as well as cases of misconduct in particular. The author also looks at the definition of co-authorship used by the committee and how this definition proves highly problematic in practice, and may raise more questions then it answersGoodstein, David “ In the Matter of J. Hendrik Schön.” Physics World (November 1, 2002)An editorial that gives a summary of the case and the three general factors that can trigger misconduct, and lessons that can be learned from the Bell Labs case.New York Times Archive New York Times Archive– articles and letters covering the case, including the expanded set of ethical guidelines adopted by the American Physical Society after this case.Service, Robert F. “Bell Lab Fires Star Physicist Found Guilty of Forging Data.” Science. 289.5591 (October 4, 2002) 30.A fuller report of the case and reactions from Schön’s co-authors.Cold Fusion Case (1989)In 1989, Dr. Martin Fleischmann and Dr. Stanley Pons announced at a press conference at the University of Utah that they had caused a cold fusion reaction by fusing deuterium nuclei using routine electrochemical techniques. Members of the scientific community were unable to replicate their results, and serious flaws were found in the gamma-ray spectra that Pons and Fleischmann offered as proof. Browne, Malcolm W. “Physicists Debunk Claim of a New Kind of Fusion.” New York Times. May 3, 1989. ()Original article that appeared after a meeting of the American Physical Society, where attending scientists presented evidence against the possibility of Fleischmann and Pon’s research results. Huizenga, John R. Cold Fusion: the Scientific Fiasco of the Century. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 1992. Galvin Library QC791.775.C64H851992Fleishmann, Martin. "Reflections on the Sociology of Science and Social Responsibility in Science, in Relation to Cold Fusion. Accountability in Research: Policies & Quality Assurance. 8:1-2 (2000) 19-54.“Whatever Happened to Cold Fusion.” PhysicsWorld March 1, 1999.An article briefly explaining the case and current research on the possibility of cold fusion.Darsee Case (1981)In May of 1981, Dr. John Darsee, a researcher at Harvard University’s Cardiac Research Center and author of several scientific papers, was found fabricating data by his colleagues. Further research revealed that Darsee seemed to indicate questionable research practices as far back as his undergraduate days. After his misconduct came to light, Darsee was banned from receiving NIH funding, many of the institutions he had worked for had to return NIH funds, and his colleagues lost months of research time reviewing Darsee’s work. Broad, W. J. (1982). "."Report absolves Harvard in case of fakery." Science, 2 1 5, 875-876.Article summarizes the case, and how Darsee’s supervisor and Harvard decided to handle reports of misconduct. Culliton, Barbara. “Coping with Fraud.” Science 220.4592 (April 1983) 30-35.A detailed article written two years after the case that discusses the aftermath, including its effect on the reputations of Darsee’s colleagues, criticisms of how Harvard handled the case, and measures taken by Harvard to deal with future allegations.Gallo Case (1984-1994)In 1984, Dr. Dr. Luc Montagnier and his team from the Institut Pasteur in Paris announced their discovery of a virus called LAV, which they thought but could not prove to be the cause of AIDS. Almost at the same time, Dr. Robert Gallo, Mikulas Popovic, and his collaborators published a series of four papers in the journal Science claiming discovery of the AIDs virus, which they named HTLV-3. Controversy over this discovery continued for ten years over who could claim credit for the discovery of the virus; had Gallo’s team isolated the virus described in the article, or if they had improperly used samples supplied by French scientists? The Pasteur Institute took the U.S. government to court over the patented blood test based on this discovery. The case was finally settled out of court, with Gallo and Montagnier agreeing on joint credit for the discovery.Brown, Phyllida. “The Strains of HIV War.” New Scientist (May 25, 1991).Article summarizes the early years of dispute up to the beginnings of the National Institute of Health’s inquiry into Dr. Gallo’s possibly miss-representing the French scientist’s role in the discovery. Gallo, Robert C. “The Early Years of HIV/AIDS.” Science 298.5599 (November 29, 2002) 1728-1730.An account of Dr. Gallo about the discovery of HIV, and the following controversy. Hilts, Philip J. “Federal Inquiry Finds Misconduct by a Discoverer of the AIDS Virus.” New York Times (December 31, 2007) Article written after an inquiry by the Federal Office of Research Integrity found that Dr. Gallo had committed scientific misconduct. Misconduct charges were later dropped after an a panel heard an appeal by Dr. Gallo’s associate, Dr. Popovic, and reversed his charges of misconduct. Rawling, Alison. The AIDS virus dispute: Awarding Priority for the Human Immunodeficiency Virus. Science, Technology, and Human Values. 19.1 (Summer 1994) p. 342-360. (Available through Galvin Library Journal Holdings) Poehlman Case (2005-2006)Dr. Eric Poehlman, an expert on menopause, aging, and metabolism, became the first person to be sent to jail for scientific misconduct after admitting to falsifying data in 15 federal grant applications. Dahlberg, John E. and Christian C. Mahler. “The Poehlman Case: Running Away from the Truth.” Science and Engineering Ethics 12.1 (January 2006) 153-173. (Available through Galvin Library Journal Holdings)A detailed history of the Poehlman case that highlights the cooperative approach in handling the case between government agencies, which ultimately led to a highly publicized guilty plea and felony charges. Interlandi, Jeneen. “An Unwelcome Discovery.” New York Times Magazine. (October 22, 2006)A detailed article on the case, and Poehlman’s explanation of why he falsified the data. Office of Research Integrity. “Press Release – Dr. Eric T. Poehlman” (March 17 2005)A press release from the ORI briefly explaining the charges against Dr. Poehlman. Also see an archive of documents on the case, including a summary of charges and a list of retracted publications. Sox, Harold C. and Drummond Rennie. “Research Misconduct, Retraction, and the Cleansing the Medical Literature: Lessons from the Poehlman Case." Annals of Internal Medicine 144.8 (18 April 2006) 609-W139.Article discusses the failure of two journals to retract articles published by Dr. Poehlman which contained false data, and discusses lessons that can be learned for editors and authors in dealing with retracted articles.Stem Cell Case (2005-2006)Dr. Hwang Woo-Suk, a researcher and professor at Seoul National University, rose to fame after claiming a series of remarkable breakthroughs in the field of stem cell research. In 2004 and 2005, Dr. Hwang published two papers in the journal Science that claimed his team had succeeded in creating human embryonic stem cells through cloning. Allegations later followed from a co-worker that these paper was based on fabricated data. The papers were editorially retracted, Dr. Hwang lost his position at Seoul National University, and the South Korean government ended its financial and legal support of his research. Bogner, Alexander and Menz, Wolfgang. “Science Crime: The Korean Cloning Scandal and the Role of Ethics.” Science and Public Policy. 33.8 (October 2006) 585-589. (Available through Galvin Library Journal Holdings)Nature News Archive: an online archive of articles about the case, as well as a time line of events.New York Times Archive : an online archive of articles that appeared in the New York Times from December 2005 to January 2006 documenting the case.Resnick, David B.’ Adil E. Shamoo, Sheldon Krimsky. “Commentary: Fraudulent Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research in South Korea: Lessons Learned.” Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance 13.1 (January 2006) 101-109. (Available through Galvin Library Journal Holdings) Codes of EthicsSee more codes in CSEP's Code of Ethics CollectionAmerican Chemical Society - Chemist's Code of ConductAmerican Institute of Chemists - Code of EthicsAmerican Medical Association - Code of Medical EthicsAmerican Physical Society - Guidelines for Professional ConductAmerican Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology - Code of EthicsBiomedical Engineering Society - Code of Ethics (2004)“The Roles of Codes of Conduct in Preventing the Misuse of Scientific Research” Royal Society, March 2005.This policy document by the British Royal Society discusses the important role codes of conduct and codes of ethics play in reducing scientific misconduct, both by fostering discussion among scientists, and provides an educational tool for training new scientists. See more science codes in our Codes of Ethics Collection.(For the IIT Community: To access, these journals, click on, "Galvin Library Journal Holdings" and type in the name of the journal you wish to find. To access Galvin-held journals while off campus, log in to MyIIT, and click on Library Resources.)Accountability in Research - Available through Galvin Library Journal HoldingsJournal of Clinical Ethics- Available through Galvin Library Journal HoldingsKennedy Institute of Ethics Journal - Available through Galvin Library Journal Holdings, and CSEP Library Print Journal CollectionScience and Engineering Ethics- Available through Galvin Library Journal Holdings, and CSEP Library Print Journal CollectionResearch Integrity – a newsletter from Michigan State University General Readings on Scientific Research Ethics :Bebeau, Murial J. “Developing a Well-Reasoned Response to a Moral Problem in Scientific Research.” – a extremely good article that explains how to form a response to an ethical dilemma. Article found at the Poynter Center for the Study of Ethics and American InstitutionsOn Being A Scientist- Responsible Conduct in Research. The full-text of the National Academy of Science's booklet.“Philosophical Foundations of Scientific Ethics” talk given by David Resnik at the Ethical Issues in Physics Workshop on July 17, 1993. Resnick discusses the main concepts of scientific and research ethics, and suggests that internal concerns and the norms of society are the main shaping force of these principles.Whitbeck, Caroline. “Truth and Trustworthiness in Research.”- This paper, which appeared in 1995 issue of Science and Engineering Ethics develops an overview of the subject of trustworthiness among researchers and discusses how many of the breaches of trust that make up most cases of research misconduct are usually examples of negligence or recklessness then actual fraud. The author then looks at the importance of trust between collaborating researchers, and the importance of supervisor-trainee relationships in forming a new researcher’s future expectations and behavior.Books and Journal Articles on Scientific Research Ethics:Anderson, Melissa S., Emily A. Ronning, Raymond De Vries, Brian C. Martinson. "The Perverse Effects of Competition on Scientists' Work and Relationships" Science and Engineering Ethics. 13:4 (2007) 337-361.This article reports on a series of focus groups held with 51 mid-career scientists which asked the participants to reflect on the effect competition has on their work and their relationships. The scientists saw this kind of competition contributing to a decline in the sharing of information and methods, and a rise in careless or questionable research conduct. Bulger, Ruth Ellen, Elizabeth Heitman, and Stanley Joel Reiser. The Ethical Dimensions of Biological Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002. CSEP Library, CSEP.QH332.E731993.An anthology of essays for graduate students and practicing researchers in the biological sciences covering ethics and authorship, plagiarism, human and animal research subjects, standards of ethical conduct in research, and the scientists’ responsibility to society. Barnbaum, Deborah R and Michael Byron. Research ethics: text and readings. Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall, 2001. CSEP Library CSEP.Q180.55.M67B372001. Drenth, Pieter J.D. "Responsible Conduct in Research." Science and Engineering Ethics. Jan. 2006 Vol. 12, No. 1. 13-21. (Available through Galvin Library Journal Holdings)Elliot, Deni and Judy E. Stern. Research ethics: a reader. Hanover, NH : University Press of New England for the Institute for the Study of Applied and Professional Ethics at Dartmouth College, 1997. CSEP Library CSEP.Q180.55.M67R441997Erwin, Edward. Sidney Gendin and Lowell Kleiman. Ethical issues in scientific research: an anthology. Garland Studies in Applied Ethics, Vol. 2. New York : Garland, 1994. CSEP Library CSEP.Q180.55.M67E831994 "The Ethics of Scientific Research" Perspectives on the Professions Vol. 8, No. 2, January 1989. CSEP Library Friedman, Paul J. “An Introduction to Research Ethics,” Science and Engineering Ethics 2.2 (October 1996) 443-456. (Available through Galvin Library Journal Holdings)Hook, Sidney, Paul Kurtz and Miro Todorovich. ed. The Ethics of Teaching and Scientific Research. Buffalo, NY : Prometheus Books, 1977. (full text available at Questia Online Library)Murphy, Timothy F. Case Studies in Biomedical Research Ethics. Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press, 2004. CSEP Library CSEP.R724.M8762004Reagan, C.E. Ethics for Scientific Researchers, 2nd Ed. Springfield, Ill.: Thomas, 1971 CSEP Library CSEP.BJ57.R41971Resnick, David. The Ethics of Science: an introduction. New York: Routledge, 1998 CSEP Library CSEP.Q175.35.R461998Rothblat, Joseph. "The Social Conscience of Scientists" Physics World. December 1999 pp. 65-68.Seebaur, Edmund and Robert L. Barry. Fundamentals of Ethics for Scientists and Engineers. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. CSEP Library CSEP.Q175.35.S442001Steneck, Nicholas H. ORI Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research. Rev. ed June 2004. Rockville , MD. : U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Research Integrity.Weinstein, Deena. “Scientific Fraud and Scientific Ethics.” CSEP Occasional Papers 4 (June 1981). CSEP Library CSEP,Q175.37.W45x1981This paper examines the ethics of scientific research and analyzes the various factors, both inside and outside of science, that limit its effectiveness to control misconduct in science. Animal Research SubjectsSee an expanded bibliography on this topic.Alternatives to Laboratory Animals (ALTA) Journal: full text of the journal that seeks to explore all aspects of the development, validation, introduction and use of alternatives to laboratory animals in biomedical research and toxicity testing.American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, "Humane Use and Care of Animals." : This is a statement from the AALAS requiring all research for papers published in their journals to conform with the U.S. Government's “Principles for the Utilization and Care of Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing Research and Training.” [Last modified 8/3/2005]Animal Welfare Act and regulations of the United States: Passed in 1966, the Animal Welfare Act (7 USC, 2131-2159) is the primary law that regulates the use of animals as research subjects. Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International: a nonprofit international organization that promotes the human treatment of animals through voluntary accreditation and assessment programs. The site provides links to national and international standards governing the use of animals in research, as well as links on how to develop alternative research methods that do not use animal subjects.Bird, Stephanie J. “The Ethics of Using Animals in Research.”: An online module that includes scenarios/case studies, a bibliography, and links to further web resources. Maintained by the Online Ethics Center. Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing at Johns Hopkins University: Center that works with scientists to replace the use of animals in experiments, to reduce the number of animals tested, and to refine necessary tests to eliminate pain and distress. The Center also maintains Altweb, a global clearinghouse of news, articles and other information about alternatives to animal testing. IACUC.Org: According to U.S. federal law, institutions that use laboratory animals for research or instructional purposes must establish an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) to oversee and evaluate all aspects of the institution's animal care and use program. This website is an information resource for members and staff of the IACUC committees.The Guide for The Care and Use of Laboratory Animals: published by the National Research Council. This is the basic guide for the proper care of animals used in research.Humane Society - Animals in Research: a section of the Humane Society’s web site with information on the use of animals in research. Includes position statements and campaigns of the Human Society, recent news stories, newsletters, and links to fact sheets and federal regulations.Koppelman, Elysa. “Federal Regulations for Animal Research”: a very good essay that explains the regulations governing animal research in the United States. The essay first states the rationale for the regulations and then traces their general outlines. The article stresses the “3 R’s” mandated by federal regulations: 1) Reducing the number animals used, where possible; 2) Replacing, where possible, animals with other models; and 3) Refining experiments in order to reduce pain and distress. In other words, the gist of the regulations is that no animal should be used redundantly, and that no animal should be subjected to useless suffering. Maintained by the Online Ethics Center.Books and Journal Articles on Animal Research SubjectsAnderson, Warwick. “A New Approach to Regulating the Use of Animals in Science”. Bioethics 4.1 (1990): 45-54. (Available through Galvin Library Journal Holdings)Beauchamp, Tom L. “Opposing Views on Animal Experimentation: Do Animals Have Rights?” Ethics and Behavior 7.2 (1997): 113-121. (Available through Galvin Library Journal Holdings)Bishop, Laura Jane and Anita Lonnes Nolen. "Animals in Research and Education: Ethical Issues". Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 11.1 (March 2001): 91-112. (Available through Galvin Library Journal Holdings)Cohen, Carl. "Do Animals Have Rights?" Ethics and Behavior 7.2 (1997): 91-102. (Available through Galvin Library Journal Holdings)Donnelley, Strachan. “Speculative Philosophy, the Troubled Middle, and the Ethics of Animal Experimentation”. Hastings Center Report 19 (1989): 15-21. (Available through Galvin Library Journal Holdings)Donnelley, Strachan and Kathleen Nolan, eds. “Animals, Science, and Ethics”. Hastings Center Report 20.3 (1990): Supp. 1-32. (Available through Galvin Library Journal Holdings)Francione, G.L. “The Use of Nonhuman Animals in Biomedical Research: Necessity and justification.” Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics. 35.2 (June 2007) 241-248. (Available through Galvin Library Journal Holdings)Gagneux, P., J. J. Moore, and A. Varki. "The Ethics of Research on Great Apes." Nature 437.7055 (2005): 27-9. (Available through Galvin Library Journal Holdings)Gluck, John P., Tony DePasquale, and F. Barbara Orlans. Applied Ethics in Animal Research: Philosophy, Regulation, and Laboratory Applications. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 2002. CSEP Library CSEP.HV4915.A662002Hart, Lynette A. Responsible Conduct with Animals in Research. New York: Oxford U. Press, 1998. CSEP Library CSEP.HV4915.R471998Kolar, Roman. "Animal Experimentation". Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (2006): 111-122. (Available through Galvin Library Journal Holdings)McCarthy, Charles R. "Improved Standards for Laboratory Animals?" Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 3.3 (September 1993): 293-302. (Available through Galvin Library Journal Holdings)Nuffield Council on Bioethics. The Ethics of Research Involving Animals. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2005.Nussbaum, M. C. "The Moral Status of Animals." Chronicle of Higher Education 52.22 (2006): B6-8. (Available through Galvin Library Journal Holdings)Orlans, F. Barbara. "Ethical Decision Making about Animal Experiments". Ethics and Behavior 7.2 (1997): 163-171. (Available through Galvin Library Journal Holdings)Orleans, F. Barbara. In the Name of Science: Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. CSEP Library CSEP.HV4915.O751993.---. The Human Use of Animals: Case Studies in Ethical Choice. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Galvin Library HV4915.H851998Radzikowski, C. "Protection of Animal Research Subjects." Science and Engineering Ethics, 12.1 (2006): 103-10. (Available through Galvin Library Journal Holdings)Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals. New York: Random House, 1975. Galvin Library 179.3S617Often cited as the bible of the Animal Rights movement and vegetarianism, philosopher Peter Singer discusses the moral status of animals. He argues that because animals, like humans, have the capacity to suffer, then we must consider their interests when using them for purposes such as food or for research. Tannenbaum, Jerrold and Andrew N. Rowan. “Rethinking the Morality of Animal Research”. Hastings Center Report 15 (1985): 32-43. (Available through Galvin Library Journal Holdings) Authorship Rockwell, Sarah. The Ethics of Peer Review: A Guide for Manuscript Reviewers: an essay with accompanying case studies developed for the Office of Research Integrity by Dr. Sarah Rockwell of Yale University. Essay gives an overview of some of the main ethical issues faced by peer reviewers. See accompanying case studies and other materials here.Managing Allegations of Scientific Misconduct: A Guidance Document for Editors by the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (January 2000) Document outlines the responsibilities of editors when authors who submitted manuscripts or published in their journals face allegations of scientific misconduct. RCR Responsible Authorship and Peer Review: an online module that discusses some of the ethical issues faced in publication and peer review, and ways to deal with conflicts that may arise. Developed by Columbia University’s Center for New Media Teaching and Learning. Whitbeck, Caroline, “Responsible Authorship” : an online module from the Online Ethics Center discussing the ethical issues of authorship. Includes an introductory essay, scenarios and case studies, a bibliography, and a list of further web resources. Maintained by the Online Ethics Center.Books and Journal Articles on AuthorshipBailar, John. 1990. Ethics and policy in scientific publication. Bethesda, MD: Council of Biology Editors.This book reports on a survey done by the Council of Biology Editors to "identify, clarify, and assess the prevalence and seriousness of a variety of ethical problems that editors face in scientific publishing. Members of the Council were asked to discuss fourteen scenarios describing unethical practices by authors, and asked the editors how they would deal with these issues. The book discusses the ethical issues inherent in each scenario, and gives recommendations for how editors can go about handling these situations.Jones, Anne Hudson and F. McLellan. 2000. Ethical issues in biomedical publication. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.After tracing the history of biomedical publication and setting its importance in the larger context of the responsible conduct of research, the author explains the current standards that have been developed by journal editors and discusses main issues such as authorship, peer review, repetitive publication, conflict of interest, and electronic publishing.LaFollette, M.C. 1996. Stealing into print: fraud, plagiarism, and misconduct in scientific publishing. Berkeley: University of California Press.The author looks at some of the ethical issues inherent in scientific publishing practices, how changes such as the proliferation of paper with multiple authors and electronic journals are putting new strains on the peer review system, and looks at ways in which the system might be changed to help reduce the level of plagiarism and misconduct in scientific publication.Macrina FL, 2000. Chapter 4, Authorship and peer review. Scientific integrity: An introductory text with cases, 2nd ed: pp. 49-72. Washington D.C.: ASM Press.In this chapter, Macrina highlights the key responsibilities for an author and a peer reviewer and provides case studies addressing ethical points, such as conflicts of interest, plagiarism, and authorship roles.Shamoo AE, Resnik David. B, 2003. Chapter 4, Publication and peer review. The responsible conduct of research, pp. 68-92. New York: Oxford University Press.In this chapter, the authors offer a history of scientific publication and describe the potential problems that can arise in publishing and peer review.Journal Articles Bird SJ, 1997. Authorship under review. Science and Engineering Ethics 3: 235-236.Bouville, Mathieu. 2008. Plagiarism: Words and ideas. Science and Engineering Ethics. 14(3): 311-322.Discusses the harms of plagiarism to readers, authors, and scientific integrity.Caelleigh, A.S. Roles for scientific societies in promoting integrity in publication ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics 9: 221-241.Couzin-Frankel, Jennifer and Jackie Grom. 2009. Plagiarism sleuths. Science 324(5930): 1004-1007.Discusses a new computer program which is capable of detecting plagiarized scientific publications, and Déjà vu, an online database that lists potentially plagiarized material.Farthing, M.A. 2006. Authors and publication practices. Science and Engineering Ethics. 12(1): 41-52.Article discusses the need for authors, editors and reviews to disclose any conflicts of interests they may have.Fine MA, Kurdek LA, 1993. Reflections on determining authorship credit and authorship order on faculty-student collaborations. American Psychologist, 48(11): 1141-1147.Hauptman, Robert. 2008. Authorial ethics: how writers abuse their calling. Journal of Scholarly Publishing. 39(4): 323-353.Kennedy D. 2003. Multiple authors, multiple problems. Science301: 733.Editorial discussing ethical issues that come up when there are multiple authors working jointly on a publication.Jones, Anne Hudson. 2003. Can authorship policies help prevent scientific misconduct? What role for scientific societies? Science and Engineering Ethics. 9(2): 243-256.The purpose of this article is to encourage and help inform active discussion of authorship policies among members of scientific societies. The article explains the history and rationale of the influential criteria for authorship developed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, examines questions about those criteria that emerge from authorship policies adopted by several U.S. medical schools, and summarizes the arguments for replacing authorship with the contributor-guarantor model.Marusic, Matko, et al. 2004. Authorship in a small medical journal: A study of contributorship statements by corresponding authors. Science and Engineering Ethics 10(3): 493-502.Using the authorship criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, the authors of this study looked to see if poor adherence to these criteria is common in biomedical journals.Parrish, Deba, and Bridget Noonan. 2009. Image manipulation as research misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics. 15(2): 161-167.Authors look at a number of cases handled by the U.S. Office of Research Integrity that involved image manipulations, the misconduct associated with this action, detection methods, and the sanctions opposed on authors found guilty of image manipulation in these cases.Pearson, Helen. 2006. Credit where credit is due. Nature. 440(7084): 591-592.Discusses ways to avoid disputes over authorship in sciences by spelling out authors’ contributions in a paper and to discuss authorship when a collaboration begins.Rennie, Drummond; V. Yank and Linda Emanuel. 1997. When authorship fails: A proposal to make contributors accountable. Journal of the American Medical Association 278: 579-585.A proposal for a policy change to make investigators less likely to seek or accept credit through the mechanism of undeserved authorship.Resnik, David B. et. al. A proposal for a new system of credit allocation in science in “Forum on Authorship”Science and Engineering Ethics. 3(3): 237-266.This essay discusses some of the problems with current authorship practices and puts forward a proposal for a new system of credit allocation: in published works, scientists should more clearly define the responsibilities and contributions of members of research teams and should distinguish between different roles, such as author, statistician, technician, grant writer, data collector, etc.Ritter, S.K. 2001. Publication ethics: Rights and wrongs. Chemical and Engineering News 79(46): 24-31. author discusses some potential ethical issues raised in the area of authorship, guidelines that have been put in place by the American Chemical Society and the Office of Sponsored Research to help guide faculty and graduate students, and discusses some case studies where disputes about authorship arose.Rose, Mary & Karla Fischer. 1995. Policies and perspectives on authorship. Science and Engineering Ethics1(4): 361.This paper discusses joint authorship involving faculty and students, and the power imbalances that complicate authorship and describes a study of how graduate students think about authorship and its relationship to stated policies about authorship.Rossner, Mike and Kenneth M. Yamada. 2004. What’s in a picture? The temptation of image manipulation.Journal of Cell Biology. 166(1): 11-15.Sheskin, Theodore. J. 2006. An analytic hierarchy process model to apportion co-authorship responsibility.Science and Engineering Ethics. 12(3): 555-565.Article describes a process that can be used to determine the responsibilities of coauthors, with the objective to hold each one accountable for their individual contributions.Sikes, Pat. 2009. Will the real author come forward: Questions of ethics, plagiarism, theft, and collusion in academic research writing. International Journal of Research & Method in Education. 32(1): 13-24.Solomon, J. 2009. Programmers, professors, and parasites: Credit and co-authorship in computer science.Science and Engineering Ethics. 15(4): 467-489.This article presents an in-depth analysis of past and present publishing practices in academic computer science to suggest the establishment of a more consistent publishing standard. The author compares publishing practices in computer science with other scientific fields, and concludes with a list of basic principles that should be adopted in any computer science publishing standard. He claims this would contribute to the reliability and scientific nature of academic publications in computer science.Tarnow E. 1999. The authorship list in science: Junior physicists' perceptions of who appears and why.Science and Engineering Ethics 5: 73-88.A questionnaire probing the distribution of authorship credit was given to postdoctoral associates ("postdocs") in order to determine their awareness of the professional society's ethical statement on authorship, the extent of communication with their supervisors about authorship criteria, and the appropriateness of authorship assignments on submitted papers. Results indicate a low awareness of the professional society's ethical statement and that little communication takes place between postdocs and supervisors about authorship criteria. A substantial amount of authorship credit given to supervisors and other workers is perceived by the postdocs to violate the professional society's ethical statement.Tarnow E. 2002. Coauthorship in physics. Science and Engineering Ethics 8: 175-190.Wagner, E. et al. 2009. Science editors’ views on publication ethics: Results of an international survey.Journal of Medical Ethics. 35(6): 348-353.Results of a survey of science journal editors looking at the severity and frequency of sixteen different breaches of publication ethics that they see at their journals.Peer ReviewArmstrong, S.J.1997. Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics. 3(4): 63-84.This paper reviews the published empirical evidence concerning journal peer review published since 1975. The author concludes that these studies show that peer review improves quality, but its use to screen papers has met with limited success. Current procedures to assure quality and fairness seem to discourage scientific advancement, especially important innovations, because findings that conflict with current beliefs are often judged to have defects. Editors can use procedures to encourage the publication of papers with innovative findings such as invited papers, early-acceptance procedures, author nominations of reviewers, structured rating sheets, open peer review, results-blind review, and in particular, electronic publication.Atkinson M, 2001. “Peer review" culture. Science and Engineering Ethics. 8(1): 193-204.The article looks at some of the factors contributing to the problem of the relatively high incidence of unsatisfactory review decisions in the peer review process.Baldwin W, and B. Seto. 1997. Peer review: Selecting the best science. Science and Engineering Ethics. 3(1): 11-17.The major challenge facing today's biomedical researchers is the increasing competition for available funds. The competitive review process, through which the National Institutes of Health (NIH) awards grants, is built upon review by a committee of expert scientists. The NIH is firmly committed to ensuring that its peer review system is fair and objective.Cain J, 1999. Why Be My Colleague's Keeper? Moral Justifications for Peer Review. Science and Engineering Ethics, 5: 531-540.Cain offers a justification for scientists to do peer review, and discusses how the motivation for being a peer reviewer can be based on self-interest or on benefits for the scientific community as a whole.Callaham ML, Baxt WG, Waeckerle JF, Wears RL. 1998. Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts. JAMA 280(3): 229-231.Cicchetti, D.V. 1997. Referees, editors and publication practices: Improving the reliability and usefulness of the peer review process. Science and Engineering Ethics 3:51-62.The article discusses problems inherent in the peer review process and looks at possible ways in which to improve its reliability.Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. 1997. Evidence for the effectiveness of peer review. Science and Engineering Ethics 3(1): 35-50.The authors give a survey of the research into the effectiveness of peer review, including studies examining the blinding of reviewers to authors and the quality of the review process. They conclude that peer review needs further study or it might be abandoned.Fox, Mary Frank. 1994. Scientific misconduct and editorial and peer review processes The Journal of Higher Education 65(3): 298-309. Special Issue: Perspectives on Research Misconduct.This paper considers moral justifications for peer review. The author argues that a wider notion of "interest' permits the self-interest approach to justify not only submitting one's own work to peer review but also removing oneself momentarily from the production of primary knowledge to serve as a rigorous, independent, and honest referee.Godlee F. 2002. Making reviewers visible: Openness, accountability and credit. JAMA 287(21): 2762-2765.Kostoff, R.N. 1997. The principles and practices of peer review. Science and Engineering Ethics 3(1): 19-34.This article describes some of the major principles and practices of peer review, focusing especially on the review of proposed and ongoing programs in federal agencies. The paper also describes a number of problems that often arise in the peer review process, and gives examples of these problems in proposed and existing programs in place in some federal agencies. The article also outlines some best practices in developing a successful peer review process.Louis, Karen Seashore, Janet M. Holdsworth, Melissa S. Anderson, and Eric C. Campbell. 2008. Everyday ethics in research: Translating authorship guidelines into practice in the bench sciences. Journal of Higher Education79(1): 88-112.Peer-reviewed papers are the major currency in the realm of science. Without an appropriate number of publications in high-quality journals, scientists do not get university positions, are not promoted, and fail to get grants to fund their research. Decisions made about authorship are not always straightforward, as accepted practice sometimes conflicts with other ethical guidelines or "rules of thumb," such as fairness, reciprocity, and sponsorship. This article examines how and why "highly productive" life scientists in universities make these important decisions. The findings illuminate the idiosyncratic nature of authorship decisions, the important role that context plays in scientists' decision-making about authorship, and how authorship often is a commodity exchanged among scientists. Concluding comments focus on the significance of studying "everyday ethics" and their potential impact on disciplines and higher education institutions.Resnick, David, Christina Gutierrez-Ford and Shyamal Peddada. 2008. Perceptions of ethical problems with scientific journal peer review: An exploratory study. Science and Engineering Ethics 14(3): 305-310.This article reports the results of a survey of researchers at a government research institution looking at their perception of ethical issues that exist in regard to peer review. The largest number of researchers surveyed believed that incompetent review was the largest problem. Bias in the review system was the second largest problem seen. The authors recommend that other investigators follow up this research with this exploratory study on the ethics of peer review.Rockwell, Sarah. 2005. Ethics of peer review: a guide for manuscript reviewers. Yale University, U.S. Office of Research Integrity.An essay with accompanying case studies by Dr. Sarah Rockwell of Yale University. Essay gives an overview of some of the main ethical issues faced by peer reviewers.Spier, R.E. 2002. Peer review and innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics. 8(1): 99-108.Two important aspects of the relationship between peer review and innovation includes the acceptance of articles for publication in journals and the assessment of applications for grants for the funding of research work. The author argues that innovative papers are not stifled in the publication process by peer review, but that the situation differs in the area of grants. In the case of grants, refusal necessarily stops possible innovative research. The author suggests that funding organizations may wish to set aside some money for promising innovative projects, and that the peer review process may need to be modified in these cases.Stamps, Arthur E. 1997. Using a dialectical scientific brief in peer review. Science and Engineering Ethics.3(1): 85-98.This paper presents a framework that editors, peer reviewers, and authors can use to identify and efficiently resolve disputes that arise during peer review in scientific journals. Called a scientific dialectical brief, this framework helps authors and reviewers format their differences into specific assertions, and provide support for these assertions. The types of support to be used include empirical data, reasoning, speculation, feelings and status. It is suggested that the scientific dialectical brief format can streamline the review process by facilitating rapid differentiation between stronger and weaker support, so that valuable time can be focused on the better-substantiated claims.Washburn, Jason. 2008. Encouraging research collaboration through editorial and fair authorship: A model policy. Ethics & Behavior 18(1): 44-58.Wilson J.R. 2002. Responsible authorship and peer review. Science and Engineering Ethics 8: 155-174.In this article the basic principles of responsible authorship and peer review are surveyed, with special emphasis on (a) guidelines for refereeing archival journal articles and proposals; and (b) how these guidelines should be taken into account at all stages of writing.Conflict of InterestConflict of Interest Toolkit : The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology has put together a toolkit for institutions, publications, researchers and industry for disclosing and managing financial relationships between academia and industry in biomedical research.IIT's Conflict of Interest and Conflict of Commitment Policy - Policy covering all IIT faculty and staff conducting research. (September, 2007)Kovac, Jeffery. "Conflict of Interest in Chemistry." Perspectives on the Professions. 17.1 (Fall 1997).In this short article, Kovac describes some main reasons a conflict of interest can occur for a university chemist (and, for any other scientist in or out of academe), and uses short case studies to show how a scientist must often balance several potential competing interests when pursuing his research. RCR Conflicts of Interest: an online module that discusses the many types conflicts of interests, how to recognize a conflict of interest, institutional and federal safeguards, and famous conflict of interest cases. Developed by Columbia University’s Center for New Media Teaching and Learning.Books and Journal Articles on Conflicts of InterestBooksDavis, Michael. 2001. Conflict of interest in the professions. New York: Oxford University Press.A collections of article discussing issues of conflict of interest in the professions, including engineering, science, the social sciences and medicine.Krimsky, Sheldon. 2003. Science in the private interest: Has the lure of profits corrupted the virtue of biomedical research? Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.A strongly argued book by a physicist and policy analyst at Tufts University School of Medicine looking at the involvement of industry in the sponsoring of academic research, and how these kinds of partnerships can give rise to conflicts of interest and, in some cases, the undermining of the integrity of science.Resnik, David B. 2007. The price of truth: How money affects the norms of science. New York: Oxford University Press. In The Price of Truth, David B. Resnik examines some of the important and difficult questions resulting from the financial and economic aspects of modern science. How does money affect scientific research? Have scientists become entrepreneurs bent on making money instead of investigators searching for the truth? How does the commercialization of research affect the public's perception of science? Can scientists prevent money from corrupting the research enterprise? What types of rules, polices, and guidelines should scientists adopt to prevent financial interests from adversely affecting research and the public's opinion of science?Spence, Roy G., David S. Shimm and Allen E. Buchanan. 1996. Conflicts of interest in clinical practice and research. New York: Oxford University Press.This collection of essays examine a broad set of issues involving conflicts of interest in medicine and other fields, providing an overview of what constitutes a conflict of interest a detailed discussion of conflicts of interest in medicine, and a final chapter focusing on conflicts of interest between physician and the pharmaceutical industry.Stark, Andrew. 2003. Conflict of interest in American public life. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Taking a broad approach to conflict of interest, this book analyzes the historical and recent debate and conception of conflicts of interest, and draws from case studies from a wide variety of disciplines.Journal ArticlesAnker, Jessica S., Annette Flanagan. 2007. A comparison of conflict of interest policies at peer-reviewed journals in different scientific disciplines. Science and Engineering Ethics. 13(2): 147-157.This article presents the results of a survey of high-impact peer-reviewed journals in twelve different scientific disciplines to compare their conflict of interest policies. The authors found that out of eighty-four journals, only twenty-eight had published policies, though a number of journals when contacted did respond that they did have such a policy. The authors found that frequency of policies varied among disciplines, with medical journals being the likeliest to have one and physics the least likely. Having a policy was correlated with the ranking of the journal, the highest impact journal in a discipline having a policy, as well as a reported history of conflict of interest problems. The authors found that though there was an increase in journals having conflict of interest policies from a study done in 1997, there is a further need for these policies to be readily available and to include a clear definition of conflict of interest and details about how disclosures would be managed during peer review and publication.Bekelman, Justin E., Yan Li, and Cary P. Gross. 2003. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research. JAMA 289(4): 454-65.This study sought to look at the extent, impact, and management of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research. The authors found that financial relationships among scientific investigators, industry, and academic institutions are widespread, and that conflicts of interest arising from these ties can influence biomedical research in important ways.Boyd, EA, and Lisa A. Bero. 2007. Defining financial conflicts and managing research relationships: An analysis of university conflict of interest committee decisions. Science and Engineering Ethics 13: 415-35.This article analyzes the discussions and decisions of three conflict of interest committees in California universities to look at the decision-making processes of these committees, as they struggle to understand complex financial relationships, reconcile institutional, state, and federal policies, and protect the integrity of the scientific process.Davis, Michael. 1998. Conflict of interest. Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics. San Diego: Academic Press.This encyclopedia article provides a clear description of what is meant by a conflict of interest, different kinds of conflicts of interest that exist, and strategies for dealing with conflicts as they ariseDuVal, Gordon. Institutional conflicts of interest: Protecting human subjects, scientific integrity, and institutional accountability. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 32(4): 613-625.Describes the difficulties arising from the conflicting interests of universities and research institutions overseeing research, and the potential threat these pose to human research subjects and research integrity. This is doubly true in regard to the shift of funding for biomedical research from government to industry, and the increasing commercial involvement in research.Farthing, M.A. 2006. Authors and publication practices. Science and Engineering Ethics 12(1): 41-52.Article discusses the need for authors, editors and reviews to disclose any conflicts of interests they may have.Friedman, P.J. 2002. The impact of conflict of interest on trust in science. Science and Engineering Ethics8(4):413-420.The article discusses the erosive effect conflicts of interest have on the integrity of scientific research and how it damages the way in which the public views scientists and their work, and the relationships among scientists themselves. The author recognizes disclosure as the key way to manage conflicts of interest, but also reviews other ways to improve the situation such as the improvement of rules and sanctions, new techniques for avoidance of financial conflicts by developing new funding resources for evaluative research, and new thinking about how to reduce institutional conflicts of interest.Gingras, Yves, and Pierre-Marc Gosselin. 2008. The emergence and evolution of the expression “conflict of interest” in “Science”: A historical overview, 1880-2006.The article discusses the development of the concept of "conflicts of interest" in the area of science, and shows that the content of discussions over conflicts of interest have changed over time with the transformation of the research system. The authors look at the presence of the phrase "conflicts of interest" in the journal Science over the past century to show how three different meanings have emerged, and how the changes in meaning are closely linked with the changing structure of the relations between the scientific community with the State and with industry.Glaser, B.E. and L.A. Bero. 2005. Attitudes of academic and clinical researchers toward financial ties in research: A systematic review. Science and Engineering Ethics. 11(4):553-573.This article summarizes the data from seventeen surveys looking at the attitudes of researchers to financial ties in research. The literature review revealed that investigators are concerned about the impact of financial ties on choice of research topic, research conduct and publication, but this concern is less among investigators already involved with industry. Researchers approve of industry collaboration and financial ties when the ties are indirectly related to the research, disclosure is upfront, and results and ideas are freely publicized. However, their trust in disclosure as a way to manage conflicts may reveal a lack of awareness of the actual impact of financial incentives on themselves and other researchers.Healy, David. 2003. In the grip of the python: Conflicts at the university-industry interface. Science and Engineering Ethics 9(1): 59-71.The author discusses a case he was personally involved with where a pharmaceutical company he was working with infringed on his academic freedom. The author discusses some of the disturbing observations he made during his involvement in the case, including evidence that pharmaceutical companies have miscoded raw data on suicidal acts and suicidal ideation caused by their antidepressants, and a growing body of examples of ghostwriting of articles in the therapeutics domain. Many of the tensions evident in this case, therefore, can be linked to company abilities to keep clinical trial data out of the public domain. This, the author argues, is the point at which the pharmaceutical python gets a grip on academia.Krimsky, S. and S. Rothenberg. 2001. Conflict of interest policies in science and medical journals: Editorial practices and author disclosures. Science and Engineering Ethics 7: 205-218.This study looks at how scientific and biomedical journals have adopted conflict of interest policies for authors, and if these policies have lead to any financial disclosure statements being published by the journals. Of the journal editors surveyed, about three-fourths do publish these kinds of disclosure statements. The authors conjecture that this low rate suggests that either authors have a low rate of financial interest in the subject matter of their publications, or there is poor compliance to journals' conflict of interest policies.Marklin, Ruth. 2008. How independent are IRBs? IRB: Ethics and Human Research 30(3): 15-19.This article explores the independence of institutional review boards and other ethical committees charged with reviewing research proposals. The author discusses issues of conflict of interest that can arise, and suggests some different arrangements that could minimize conflicts of interest and ensure the operation of truly independent research ethics committees.Martin, Joseph B. 2002. Academic-industrial relationships: Opportunities and pitfalls. Science and Engineering Ethics 8(3): 443-454.This article discusses a meeting of leaders in academic medicine convened by the leadership of the Harvard Medical School to formulate guidelines on individual conflicts of interest that often arise in industry sponsored clinical trials at universities.Reidenberg, M.M. 2002. Conflict of interest and medical publication. Science and Engineering Ethics 8(3): 455-457.The paper discusses the ethical requirement for researchers to publish the results of some medical studies, even if the data is "negative". Since publication is an essential part of research and patients have been recruited into a study in the belief that they are participating in medical research, there is an ethical commitment to publish the observations made on volunteer subjects.Resnik, David B. 1998. Conflicts of interest in science. Perspectives on Science 6(4): 381-408.The essay gives an overview of some current conflict in interest policies, and distinguishes real, apparent, and potential conflicts of interest. It then looks at some short, fictional case studies and uses these to suggest some strategies for reducing the impact of conflicts of interest in science.Schieppati, Arrigo, Norberto Perico and Guiseppe Remuzzi. 2002. Conflict of interest as seen from a researcher’s perspective. Science and Engineering Ethics 8(3):337-342.Discusses how the expansion and the rush to market in the pharmaceutical industry is creating new conflicts of interest, and the need for academic medicine and governments to find means to sustain the development of independent clinical research to help avoid these conflicts from occurring.Schrag, Brian, et al. 2003. Barking up the wrong tree? Industry funding of academic research: A case study with commentaries. Science and Engineering Ethics 9(4): 569-582.This article presents a case study involving conflicts of interest arising from the industrial funding of academic research, and is accompanied by discussion questions and four commentaries about the case.Sollitto, Sharmon, et al. 2003. Intrinsic conflicts of interest in clinical research: A need for disclosure. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 13(2): 83-91.Though financial conflicts of interest are addressed by university policies, government regulations and professional guidelines, intrinsic conflicts of interest – or conflicts of interest in all clinical research, still pose many moral issues. They should be disclosed to research subjects and managed as assiduously as financial conflicts of interest.Steiner, Daniel.Competing interests: The need to control conflict of interests in biomedical research. Science and Engineering Ethics 2(4): 457-468.The author looks at the increasing concern over conflict of interests that occur in biomedical research, especially in regard to collaborative relationships between universities and industries that can make individual and organization financial conflicts of interest more acute. The author looks at the types of conflict of interest that can occur, and analyzes an actual problem posed by two proposed clinical trials. Data Integrity & OwnershipSee an expanded bibliography on this topic.Mann, M.D., E. “The Ethics of Collecting and Processing Data and Publishing Results of Scientific Research.” - Short article that briefly goes through areas where unethical behavior frequently occurs when designing experiments. Originally written for an ethics course at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, and part of UNMC’s online course on research ethics.National Institutes of Health, 2003. NIH Grants Policy Statement (03/01). Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards. – Policy statement by the National Institutes of Health on publications, intellectual-property rights, sharing research resources, and access to data for all recipients of NIH grants.Availability of Research Results: Publications, Intellectual Property Rights, and Sharing Research Resources Access to Research Data Frequently Asked Questions on Data Sharing Office of Research Intergrity: Chapter 6: Data Management Practices: This chapter of an online version of a booklet produced by the U.S. Office of Research Integrity describes some of the best practices for record keeping, and includes case studies.RCR Data Acquisition and Management: online module that discusses the ethical issues faced by researchers when acquiring and managing research data. Developed by Columbia University’s Center for New Media Teaching and Learning.Whitbeck, Caroline. “The Responsible Collection, Retention, Sharing and Interpretation of Data”: an online module discussing responsible data management. Includes scenarios/cases on data integrity, as well as a bibliography and links to further online resources. Maintained by the Online Ethics Center.Books and Journal Articles on Data Integrity and Management: Bird, Stephanie J., and David E. Housman. "Trust and the collection, selection, analysis and interpretation of data: A scientist's view." Science and Engineering Ethics 1 (October 1995): 371-82. (Print copy available at CSEP Library)Di Norcia, Vincent. “Intellectual Property and the Commercialization of Research and Development.” Science and Engineering Ethics 11.2 (April 2005) 203-219. (Available through Galvin Library Journal Holdings)Author discusses some of the benefits and drawbacks of private and common intellectual property rights (IP), and concludes that while common IP helps foster the openness about and adverse findings and a wide, low cost diffusion of results scientific research and innovation requires, private IP can work as well, especially when it is regulated by a common IP right.Fields, Kay L and Alan R. Price. “Problems in Research Integrity Arising from Misconceptions about the Ownership of Research.” Academic Medicine. 68.9 (1993) S60-S64.Article discusses the ownership of research data, NIH and ORI policies, and discusses the rights of scientists, their collaborators, and their trainees to intellectual property. Gardenier, John, David B. Resnik. “The Misuse of Statistics: Concepts, tools, and a research agenda.” Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance. 9.2.(April-June 2002) 65-74 Pascal, Chris B. “Managing Data for Integrity: Policies and Procedures for Ensuring the Accuracy and Quality of the Data in the Laboratory.” Science and Engineering Ethics. 12.1 (Jan 2007) 23-29. Human Subjects and Human Tissue Samples in ResearchBelmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. National Institutes of Health: On July 12, 1974, the National Research Act was signed into law creating the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. One of the charges of the Commission was to identify the basic ethical principles that should underlie the conduct of biomedical and behavioral research involving human subjects and to develop guidelines. The resulting Belmont Report, is one of the main guides used today by IRB’s of experiments utilizing human subjects.Declaration of Helsinki (1964): A statement made by the World Medical Association that has largely replaced the Nuremberg Code as the current international standard for experimentation using human subjects.Human Participant Protections Education for Research Teams: a online tutorial developed by the Office of Human Research Protections and the National Cancer Institute as an introduction to major federal regulations, individual and institutional responsibilities, informed consent, and the role and duties of an Internal Review Board overseeing research utilizing human research subjects.International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects: adopted by the Council for International Organizations of Medical Science (CIOMS) these guidelines are designed to be of use to countries defining their national policies on the ethics of biomedical research involving human subjects. 2002 edition. (Note: you can see the full text of the Guidelines by scrolling down the page.)Nuremberg Code: a ten-point statement that arose from the Nuremberg Military Tribunal’s decision in the case, United States v. Karl Brandt et al. It states that human experimentation is only justifiable if its results benefit society, and if it is carried out in accord with basic principles that “satisfy moral, ethical, and legal concepts.” Office of Human Research Protections: The U.S. OHRP is charged with interpreting and overseeing the implementation of all regulations regarding the protection of human subjects. Includes links to ethical guidelines and regulations, fact sheets, and policy statements of the National Institutes of Health. Also, see the Human Subject Assurance Training tutorial that explains the responsibilities of a member of an Internal Review Board of a federally supported project involving human subjects. It covers Human Health and Safety regulations and institutional responsibilities, investigator responsibilities and informed consent, and the Human Research Protections Program.Protection of Human Subjects (45 CFR 46): section of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations dealing with the protection of human (Revised June 23, 2005). Research on Human Specimens: are you conducting research using human subjects?: a relatively short FAQ developed by the National Cancer Institute that answers some of the main questions of doing research on human tissue samples and the federal regulations and guidelines that apply.Books and Journal Articles on the Use of Human Subjects in Research:Appelbaum, P.S., L.H. Roth, C.W. Lidz, P. Benson, and W. Winslade. “False Hopes and Best Data: Consent to Research and the Therapeutic Misconception.” Hastings Center Report 17.2 (1987): 20–24. (Print copy available at CSEP Library)Backlar, P. “Human Subjects Research, Ethics, Research on Vulnerable Populations.” In Encyclopedia of Ethical, Legal, and Policy Issues in Biotechnology, eds. T.H. Murray and M.J. Mehlman, 641–651. New York: Wiley-Interscience, 2000. Galvin Reference (Non Circulating) REF.TP248.16.M87200Bok, S. "Shading the Truth in Seeking Informed Consent for Research Purposes". Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 5.1 (March 1995): 1-17. (Print copy available at CSEP Library)Cumming, J.F., A.R. Sahni, and G.R. McClelland. “The Importance of the Subject in Informed Consent.” Applied Clinical Trials 15.3 (March 2005): 64-70.Dresser, R. "Naive Expectations Endanger Biomedical Research". The Chronicle of Higher Education 47 (July 6, 2001): 43.Eckenwiler, Lisa. "Moral Reasoning and the Review of Research Involving Human Subjects". Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 11.1 (March 2001): 37-69. (Available through Galvin Library Journal Holdings)Edwards, Sarah J. L. "Research Participation and the Right to Withdraw." Bioethics 19.2 (April, 2005): 112-30.Emanuel, Ezekiel J. Ethical and Regulatory Aspects of Clinical Research: Readings and Commentary. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003. CSEP Library CSEP.R853.H8E8252003Green, Ronald Michael. “What Does it Mean to Use Someone as "A Means Only": Rereading Kant.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 11. 3 (September 2001): 247-261. (Print copy available at CSEP Library)Iltis, Ana. “Law Concepts in Informed Consent to Biomedical Research: The Capacity to Understand and Appreciate Risk.” Bioethics 20.4 (2006): 180-90. (Available through Galvin Library Journal Holdings)Kahn, J.P., A.C. Mastroianni, and J. Sugarman, eds. 1998. Beyond Consent: Seeking Justice in Research. New York: Oxford University Press. CSEP Library CSEP.R853.H8B491998Kass, Nancy E., Jeremy Sugarman, Ruth Faden et al. “Trust: The Fragile Foundation of Contemporary Biomedical Research”. Hastings Center Report 26.5 (1996): 25-29.Kishore, R.R. “Biomedical Research and the Mining of the Poor: The Need for their Exclusion.” Science and Engineering Ethics. 12.1 (Jan 2006): 175-183.Kottow, M. “The Battering of Informed Consent.” Journal of Medical Ethics 30.6 (Dec 2004): 565-569.Menikoff, J. "Full Disclosure: Telling Patients When Not Being a Research Subject is a Good Choice." Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 48.SUPPL. 1 (2005).Perry, Clifton. “Informed Consent in Research”. National Forum 79.3 (Summer 1999): 22-25.Research on Human Subjects [Special Issue]. The Park Ridge Center Bulletin 18 (Nov.-Dec. 2000).Rosoff, Arnold J. “Informed Consent in the Electronic Age”. American Journal of Law and Medicine 25.2/3 (1999): 367-86.Veatch, Robert M. The Patient as Partner: A Theory of Human-Experimentation Ethics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987. CSEP Library CSEP.R853.H8V431987Walker, Rebecca. “Human and Animal Subjects of Research: the moral significance of respect versus welfare.” Theoretical medicine and Bioethics: Philosophy of Medical Research and Practice. 27.4 (2006) 305-331.Paper explores two justifications for the differences in protections between human and animal research subjects. MentoringSee an expanded bibliography on this topic.Pfund, Christine. Et al. “The Merits of Training Mentors.” Science. 311.5760 (January 2006) 473-474: Article discussing a seminar developed for training graduate students to act as mentors at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.RCR Mentoring: an online module on the importance of mentoring for the promotion of responsible conduct of research, the ethical issues that may arise in the mentor-trainee relationship, and ways to become an effective mentor. Developed by Columbia University’s Center for New Media Teaching and Learning.Research Mentoring Module: interactive, online module on the ethics and responsibilities present in mentor-trainee relationships by Northern Illinois University.Whitbeck, Caroline. “The Supervisor-Trainee Relationship.”: An online module off of the Online Ethics Center that includes an introductory essay, and number of case studies to be discussed, and well as recommended reading and web sources on mentoring.Books, Journal Articles, and Other Resources on Mentoring:Bird, S.J. and Sprague, R.L. " Mentoring and the Responsible Conduct of Research" Science and Engineering Ethics 7.4 (2001) 449-640. (Print copy available at CSEP Library)Bird, Stephanie J. "Overlooked aspects in the education of science professionals: Mentoring, ethics, and professional responsibility." Journal of Science Education and Technology 3 (1994) 49-55. (Available through Galvin Library's article request system)Guston, David H. “Mentorship and the Research Training Experience.” In Responsible Science, Volume II: Background Papers and Resource Documents. Washington D.C. : National Academies Press, 1993.National Academy of Sciences (1997), Advisor, Teacher, Role Model, Friend: On Being a Mentor to Students in Science and Engineering. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Tolloczko, Tadeusz. “The Mentor and the Trainee in Academic Clinical Medicine.” Science and Engineering Ethics. 12.1 (Jan. 2006) 95-102. (Available through Galvin Library Journal Holdings)Weil, Vivian. “Mentoring: some ethical considerations.” Science and Engineering Ethics. 7.4 (July 2001) 471-482. (Print copy available at CSEP Library)Plagiarism Academic Plagiarism Defined : this essay by Dr. Irving Hexman of the University of Calgary, gives a very clear definition of plagiarism, and examples of common types of plagiarism that often appear in student papers.Buzzelli, Donald E. “Plagiarism in Science: The Experience of NSF.” Perspectives on the Professions. 13.1 (July 1993).Article by a former staff member of the Office of the Inspector General at the National Science Foundation, which deals with allegations of misconduct that NSF receives in connections with its proposals and awards discussing the types of plagiarism cases the office investigates.Plagiarism Tutorial: developed by the San Jose Library. This simple tutorial introduces you to different types of plagarism, and the proper way to cite original sources. Not designed specifically for science students, but useful to get a general idea of of how to avoid plagorizing in assignments.Test your Knowledge of Plagiarism: A online quiz developed by Indiana University that lets you test your knowledge of what counts as plagiarism. This is a useful tool for learning how to correctly cite another author's words and ideas in your own writing.Books, Journal Articles, and Other Resources on PlagiarismBird, Stephanie J. “Self-Plagiarism and Dual and Redundant Publications: What is the Problem? Commentary on ‘Seven ways to Plagiarize: Handling Real Allegations of Research Misconduct.’” Science and Engineering Ethics 8.4 (Oct. 2002) 529-539. (Print copy available in CSEP Library)Decoo, Wilfrefried. Crisis on Campus: Confronting Academic Misconduct. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 2002. CSEP Library CSEP.LB2344.D432002Book that discusses academic misconduct on university campus, focusing especially on the problem of plagiarism.Gibelman, Margaret. Sheldon R. Gelman. “Plagiarism in Academia: Trends and implications.” Accountability in Research: Policies & Quality Assurance 10.4 (October 2003) 229-252.Loui, Michael. “Seven ways to Plagiarize: Handling Real Allegations of Research Misconduct.” Science and Engineering Ethics 8.4 (Oct. 2002) 529-539. (Print copy available in CSEP Library)Article by a university research integrity officer that presents eight cases highlighting how appearances can be mistaken, policies for handling allegations of research misconduct cannot cover every contingency, and many cases can be resolved without resort to formal procedures. Research MisconductFederal Policy on Research Misconduct (effective December 6, 2000): In October of 1999, the Office of Science and Technology Policy published a request for public comment on a proposed Federal misconduct policy. Based on comments received, this policy was written and enacted into law. It applies to to all research done by Federal agencies, to all research conducted or managed by Federal government contractors, and all federally-funded research performed at research institutions, including universities and industry. Maintained by the Online Ethics Center.ORI Model Policy for Responding to Allegations of Scientific Misconduct : a model policy developed by the U.S. Office of Research Integrity for institutions to use as a starting point for drafting their own policy for how to respond to allegations of scientific misconduct.RCR Research Misconduct: online module that discusses what constitutes misconduct, how to report it, and how institutions can deal with cases of misconduct. Developed by Columbia University’s Center for New Media Teaching and Learning.Books, Journal Articles, and Other Resources on Research MisconductBell, Robert. Impure Science: Fraud, Compromise, and Political Influences in Scientific Research. New York: Wiley, 1992. CSEP Library CSEP.Q175.37.B451992Consoli, Luca. “Scientific Misconduct and Science Ethics: a case study based approach.” Science and Engineering Ethics 12.3 (July 2006) 533-541.Article looks at the case of the physicist Jan Hendrik Schön of Bell Lavatories, who used falsified data in numerous published research papers. The author looks at the report of the official committee charged with the investigation, and highlights how the daily practice of science is plagued by chronic problems that have serious consequences for how scientists assess their work, as well as cases of misconduct in particular. The author also looks at the definition of co-authorship used by the committee and how this definition proves highly problematic in practice, and may raise more questions then it answers.Martin, Brian. “Scientific Fraud and the Power Structure of Science." Prometheus 10.1 (June 1992) 83-98.This article looks at the wide range of questionable behaviors that can arise in the routine practice of scientific research. While only a handful of behaviors are considered as fraudulent, such as manufacturing data, the complexity of scientific research means that often minor lapses in ethical behavior slide by unnoticed. This does not mean that these dubious practices are not unethical, merely that many scientists have come to regard them as part of the standard scientific method. By looking at famous Australian cases of science misconduct, the author shows that the definition of what practices are considered “fraudulent” results from social processes, and not absolute standards. Parrish, Debra M. “Scientific Misconduct and Findings against Graduate and Medical Students.” Science and Engineering Ethics13.3 (July 2004) 483-491Reports on the findings of a study of cases closed by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Research Integrity and the National Science Foundation. The study found that most allegations against students are for falsification and fabrication of data, and the sanctions imposed when allegations proved to be true. Teich, Albert and Mark S. Frankel. Good Science and Responsible Scientists: Meeting the Challenge of Fraud and Misconduct in Science. Washington, DC: AAAS, 1992. CSEP Library CSEP.Q175.37.T45x1992White, Caroline. “Suspected Research Fraud: difficulties of getting at the truth.” BMJ: British Medical Journal 331.7511 (30 July 2005): 281-288.Article documents the efforts to investigate the 1992 research misconduct case involving studies published in the BMJ by Dr. Ram B. Sing after peer reviewers began to voice concerns about the studies’ data. For more resources, see the Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) Education Resource Bibliography complied by Nick Steneck for the Office of Research Integrity (2004). Whistleblowing - Books and Journal ArticlesCouzin, Jennifer. "Scientific Misconduct: Truth and Consequences." Science 313.5791 ( September 2006) 1222 - 1226.After a group of graduate students turned in their advisor for scientific misconduct, they must attempt to recover from the damage done to their careers. Gunsalus, C.K. “How to Blow the Whistle and Still Have a Career Afterwards." Science and Engineering Ethics 4.1 (January 1998) 51-64.Gunsalus gives some advice and rules to follow when you suspect someone of research misconduct. Namely, consider all the possible explanations, talk with someone you trust and seek advice, follow the procedures of your university of institution for reporting misconduct, and don't jump to any hasty decisions. "Special Issue: Whistleblowing and Scientific Misconduct." Ethics & Behavior. 3.1 Hinsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1993. CSEP Library CSEP.Q175.37.E84x1993 Women and Underrepresented Groups in ResearchSee an expanded bibliography on this topic. American Indian Science and Engineering SocietyAssociation for Women in ScienceCommittee on Women in Science, Engineering and Medicine of the National Research CouncilNational Society for Black PhysicistsNational Action Committee for Minorities in EngineeringSociety for Advancement of Chicanos and Native Americans in ScienceStatistics about Women and Minorities in Science from the National Science FoundationBooks and Journal Articles on Women and Underrepresented Groups in Science Other TopicsRCR Collaboration: online module discussing the benefits and potential problems that researchers may face when engaging in collaborative and multidisciplinary research. Developed by Columbia University’s Center for New Media Teaching and Learning. Last modified February 22, 2012.