Videnskabsetik Søren Holm Seksjon for medisinsk etik.

Præsentationer af emnet: "Videnskabsetik Søren Holm Seksjon for medisinsk etik."— Præsentationens transcript:

1 Videnskabsetik Søren Holm Seksjon for medisinsk etik

2 Oversigt Har videnskabelig aktivitet interne normer? Hvad kan disse normer sige os om –forfatterskab –videnskabelig fusk –interessekonflikter

3 Normer og funktion Lad os definere videnskab som en aktivitet der sigter mod frembringelse af generaliserbar viden, og viden som sand, begrundet antagelse om et givet sagsforhold Det medfører at videnskab er en sandhedsrettet aktivitet Hvilke normer er nødvendige for en sandhedsrettet aktivitet?

4 Videnskabens normsystem a.m. Knut Erik Tranøy Interne normer (videnskabsetik) regulerer forholdet mellem forskere Epistemiske normer –Sandhed, testbarhed, konsistens, koherens, simpelhed Sociale normer –Åbenhed, åbenhed overfor nye ideer, ærlighed, samarbejde? Forbindelses-normer regulerer forholdet mellem forskere og samfundet Brugbarhed, frugtbarhed, relevans Eksterne normer (forskningsetik) regulerer forholdet mellem forskere og forsøgspersoner

5 Robert Merton, “The normative structure of science”, 1942 CUDOS – normerne Communism of knowledge (knowledge is common property) Universalism (the validity of a scientific claim does not depend on the personal or the social attributes of its proponents) Disinterestedness (the motives of the scientist are irrelevant) Organized skepticism

6 UiOs 10 bud for god forskningsskikk 1.Du skal innrette deg etter både rettigheter og plikter i loven om akademisk frihet. 2.Du skal være deg bevisst at ærlighet er en absolutt betingelse for vitenskapelig arbeid. 3.Du skal handle i overensstemmelse med det etiske regelverk som gjelder på ditt forskningsområde. 4.Du skal gi anerkjennelse til kolleger og kunnskapskilder som har betydning for din egen forskning. 5.Du skal, så sant det er mulig, delta i et kollegialt fellesskap som kommuniserer og analyserer forskningens metoder og resultater. 6.Du skal kunne gjøre rede for hvordan du forvalter midler som er stilt til din disposisjon. 7.Du skal sørge for at dine vitenskapelige resultater er solide nok til å støtte konklusjonene dine, og for at rådata/kildeinformasjon for publikasjonene er tilgjengelige. 8.Du skal følge reglene for vitenskapelig publisering innen ditt fagfelt. 9.Du skal la forskningsformidlingen være nøktern; konsekvenstenkningen bør omfatte både mulig nytte og mulige etiske dilemmaer. 10.Du skal vedlikeholde og videreutvikle din vitenskapelige kompetanse.

7 Hvordan skal vi forstå funktionen af forfatterskab Hvad er forskerens “betaling” for det arbejde (inkl. intellektuelt arbejde) der lægges i et forskningsprojekt? Mere end lønnen som arbejdsgiveren udbetaler? “Kredit” som kan hjælpe i den videre karriere? –Hvilke former for “Kredit”? “An “author” is generally considered to be someone who has made substantive intellectual contributions to a published study, and biomedical authorship continues to have important academic, social, and financial implications.” (ICMJE) http://www.icmje.org/

8 Medforfatterskab – ICMJE regler Authorship credit should be based on 1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and 3) final approval of the version to be published. Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, and 3. When a large, multi-center group has conducted the work, the group should identify the individuals who accept direct responsibility for the manuscript. These individuals should fully meet the criteria for authorship defined above and editors will ask these individuals to complete journal-specific author and conflict of interest disclosure forms. Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group, alone, does not justify authorship. All persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship, and all those who qualify should be listed. Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.

9 Bidragsydere som ikke er forfattere The group should jointly make decisions about contributors/authors before submitting the manuscript for publication. The corresponding author/guarantor should be prepared to explain the presence and order of these individuals. It is not the role of editors to make authorship/contributorship decisions or to arbitrate conflicts related to authorship. II.A.2. Contributors Listed in Acknowledgments All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in an acknowledgments section. Examples of those who might be acknowledged include a person who provided purely technical help, writing assistance, or a department chair who provided only general support. Editors should ask corresponding authors to declare whether or not they had assistance with study design, data collection, data analysis, or manuscript preparation. If such assistance was available, the authors should disclose the identity of the people that provided this assistance and the entity that supported it in the published article. Financial and material support should also be acknowledged. Groups of persons who have contributed materially to the paper but whose contributions do not justify authorship may be listed under a heading such as “clinical investigators” or “participating investigators,” and their function or contribution should be described—for example, “served as scientific advisors,” “critically reviewed the study proposal,” “collected data,” or “provided and cared for study patients.” Because readers may infer their endorsement of the data and conclusions, all persons must give written permission to be acknowledged.

10 Typiske forfatterskabsproblemer Exclusion from authorship Gift authorship Authorship achieved by coercion Unsolicited authorship Refusal to accept responsibility as an author when other misconduct is detected

11 Paper submitted by a PR company without the knowledge of the authors A paper was submitted for which there were seven contributors, but no corresponding author. The only identification of who had sent the paper was an accompanying e- mail from a public relations company. When contacted by the editorial office, the PR company confirmed that the paper was to be considered for possible publication. The named contributors were then contacted and asked whether they had given permission for their name to be attached to the paper, asked who was the corresponding author, and also if they wished to declare any conflict of interest. This produced a very interesting flurry. One author said the paper had been produced as a result of a seminar to which he and the other contributing authors had been invited. He himself believed that he was simply giving advice to the drug company concerned, for which he had received a fee. He believed that a misunderstanding had led the PR company to send the paper for review, but that he had no knowledge that they had done so, and suggested that the paper be shredded. Another author telephoned to say he could remember very little about it and certainly hadn’t seen the final document. A third author telephoned in some distress, anxious that he might be accused of some form of misconduct and had never thought that his involvement would lead to a paper being submitted to a journal. The most interesting letter of all was from the first named author who had subsequently written an editorial for the journal that was fairly critical of the drug concerned. The PR company who was acting for the drug company, she said, had submitted the paper on her behalf without her knowledge. […] The same company had previously published another article to which they had put her name, but which she had not written. This author feels very abused, particularly as she wrote to the PR company requesting that they did not use her name again.’ (COPE case 00/06)

12 An attempt to bribe an editor Somebody—possibly a representative of a drug company or a PR acting for the company—rang an editor on behalf of study authors to say that she would guarantee to buy 1000 reprints if the journal would continue to consider for publication a study that conflicted with a policy that the journal had just introduced. “And”, she said,“I will buy you a dinner at any restaurant you choose.” (COPE 02/18)

13 Forskningsfusk Kendt fænomen indenfor alle typer af forskning Inkluderer: Data-fabrikation Data-manipulering Plagiat af ideer og publikationer Dobbeltpublicering og overflødig publikation (inkl. ”salami-” og ”imalas-publikation”) Forfatterskabsproblemer

14 Who made me the genius I am today, The mathematician that others all quote? Who's the professor that made me that way, The greatest that ever got chalk on his coat? One man deserves the credit, One man deserves the blame, and Nicolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky is his name. Oy! Nicolai Ivanovich Lobache... I am never forget the day I first meet the great Lobachevsky. In one word he told me secret of success in mathematics: Plagiarize! Plagiarize, Let no one else's work evade your eyes, Remember why the good Lord made your eyes, So don't shade your eyes, But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize... Only be sure always to call it please, "research". Fra Tom Lehrer ”Lobachevsky”

15 Hvor hyppigt er fusk? “A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices.” Fanelli D (2009) How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. PLoS ONE 4(5): e5738. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

16 Hvorfor fuskes der? ‘In a letter to Judge William Sessions, III, U. S. District Court for the District of Vermont, Eric T. Poehlman said he had convinced himself that it was acceptable to falsify data for the following reasons: ‘First, I believed that because the research questions I had framed were legitimate and worthy of study, it was okay to misrepresent “minor” pieces of data to increase the odds that the grant would be awarded to UVM* and the work I proposed could be done.’ ‘Second, the structure at UVM created pressures which I should have, but was not able to stand up to. Being an academic in a medical school setting, I saw my job and my laboratory as expendable if I were not able to produce. Many aspects of my laboratory, including salaries of the technicians and lab workers, depended on my ability to obtain grants for the university. I convinced myself that the responsibility I felt for these individuals, the stress associated with that responsibility, and my passion and personal ambition justified “cutting corners”.’ ‘Third, I cannot deny that I was also motivated by my own desire to advance as a respected scientist because I wanted to be recognized as an important contributor in a field I was committed to.’ (Office of Research Integrity 2006, p. 5) *UVM is the abbreviation for the University of Vermont at Burlington.

17 Kontrol af videnskabelig fusk Internt i forskersamfundet Problemer med varsling og varslere Eksternt Forebyggende Undersøgende Eksterne systemer er ofte bureaukratiske og der kan være problemer med uvildigheden

18 Interessekonflikter The BMJ’s definition “A competing interest exists when professional judgment concerning a primary interest (such as the validity of research or the choice of an external supplier) may be influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain). We believe that the best decisions are made when knowledge of any competing interests is shared among all parties to a decision. We are not aiming to eradicate competing interests -- they are almost inevitable. We used to ask about any competing interests, but we have decided to restrict our request to financial interests for the time being. This is largely a tactical move. We hope that it will increase the number of disclosures of competing interests. “

19 Gruppearbejde om konkurrence og samarbejde 1. Hvilke regler eller normer er der for konkurrence og samarbejde med: –Kolleger i samme forskningsgruppe –Kolleger på samme institut –Kolleger andre steder 2. Hvor kommer disse “regler” fra? Hvem fastlægger reglerne? 3. Hvordan har I lært “reglerne”? 4. Er konkurrence en god ting? (hvornår / hvornår ikke?) 5. Er samarbejde en god ting? (hvornår / hvornår ikke?)