Ethics, revisited

Dale J. Benos, Publications Committee Chair

Fraud, duplicate publication, animal welfare violations, author disputes: these words and phrases evoke different responses from different people. However, one common response that should be evoked in a scientist is revulsion. Truth and honesty are the underpinnings of scientific inquiry. Anything less is unacceptable. In fact, without complete and utter adherence to the principles of ethical behavior, all scientists, and science itself, are threatened.

Why the gloomy introduction? There has, unfortunately, been an unsettling increase in the number of ethical issues confronting the Publications Committee of the American Physiological Society. Some of these issues have already been discussed in two APS editorials (1, 3). In addition to those mentioned above, these issues involve unacknowledged redundant publication of tables and figures, conflict of interest, improper use and/or acquisition of human material, and plagiarism. In some cases, the offending parties are unaware that, for example, all authors of a manuscript should be familiar with its contents, or that erasure of an aberrant datum or two is acceptable only as long as Chauvenet’s criterion can reasonably be applied. In these cases, journal Editors and society publishing programs can play an educational role with inexperienced authors. In other cases, however, the infractions are blatant and cannot be explained by ignorance, nor can they be accepted as carelessness. Examples of this sort include: 1) republication of previously published figures; 2) submission of manuscripts without the approval of all authors; and 3) presentation of the same data with altered experimental conditions in response to a reviewer’s comment in a previous and unsuccessful submission to a different journal. In blatant cases of unethical behavior, the authors’ institutions may become involved, performing an inquiry into whether and to what extent there was unethical behavior. At APS we have procedures delineated in our Ethical Policies and Procedures document, which can be found on the inside back cover of every journal issue and on the World Wide Web at http://www.the-aps.org/publications/journals/apsethic.htm. We take ethical issues very seriously, but handle them carefully, because once an institution is involved, a scientist’s career is on the line. If, as a reader, reviewer, or author, you perceive unethical conduct having to do with a journal article, please contact the appropriate editor/associate editor, who will in turn initiate the established procedures for dealing with such issues.

Traditionally, the orderly process of scientific inquiry requires a hypothesis to be generated, then tested by experimentation, the results and conclusions packaged in a manuscript, the paper submitted to a journal for peer review by experts in the field, and finally revised where appropriate. In this modern era, many scientists now engage in complementary discovery-driven research, namely, making observations in the absence of specific hypothesis that will lead to new scientific ideas. It is no surprise that this approach culminates in a manuscript. For science to progress, it must be communicated. The benefits and objectivity of peer review have been argued, but there can be no dispute that peer review adds value to a scientific publication by culling papers with poor design, identifying procedural flaws such as inadequate statistical validation, ascertaining that the conclusions reached are supported by the data, and, albeit in a relatively small fraction of submitted manuscripts, calling attention to potentially fraudulent data. No matter how objective and how self-critical a scientist is, it is hard to be totally dispassionate about one’s own work. But this is also positive: the commitment, the enthusiasm, and the intensity and drive to seek answers to important and difficult questions differentiates good science from mediocre science. Peer review can and should provide an additional level of detached objectivity to a body of work. In doing so, peer review enhances published research’s import and quality. This is important, given the greater public access to the scientific literature, previously the realm of the specialists. More importantly, and especially when the work has clinical ramifications, peer review ensures that false hopes and expectations are not raised when the work is misrepresented or exaggerated consciously or unconsciously by the authors.

Historically, the pressures that ensue from public criticism of a scientist’s intellectual endeavors can be immense, particularly if the work promulgates thoughts that challenge existing paradigms. Furthermore, these issues are magnified when productivity is coupled to institutional promotions, acquisition of research funding, and with increasing nonacademic demands. Perhaps the stresses that result from such a competitive environment contribute to a person’s deviation from proper ethical behavior. But it is precisely adherence to highly evolved, definitive standards that ensures that valid science is performed and disseminated in the public domain. Even one violation of high moral conduct cannot be tolerated, especially in light of the ever-increasing availability of newly released information that is accessible to scientists and nonscientists alike.

Scientists are explorers, pioneers, and purveyors of the unknown, funded in large measure by money obtained from nonscientists. The testimonies of these voyages into fresh frontiers are essential and are recorded in the publications of the scientist. As Walter B. Cannon wrote: "The discoverer in science may justifiably entertain the deeply gratifying thought that work well done, observations carefully made and recorded, will ultimately combine with other observations, perhaps made long afterward, in forming the body of truth. ... An investigator may never see the synthesis which brings his work into its relations with the work of others, but from historical evidence he can be assured that such may be the destiny of his observations" (2).

The APS publication program is designed to provide a context in which only the very best work is distributed to the world community. But no matter how many checks and balances are put into place, ultimately the responsibility for honesty lies with the scientist. This problem of untoward ethical behavior in publishing can be minimized and I believe eliminated if all of us reflect upon why we chose to pursue a career in investigative science and if we all take the time to educate ourselves and our students in these matters. Formative influences are strong. We are all citizens of science and must do everything possible to contribute to and uphold the integrity of the enterprise. The marvel, the sparkle of witnessing a new aspect of nature unfolding is boundless. What a tragedy if this glory is ruined by misbehavior. We are given full liberty in our scientific inquiries; therefore, I contend that it is our responsibility to do everything in our power to preserve the sanctity of the work.

FOOTNOTES

Article published online before print. See web site for date of publication (http://physiolgenomics.physiology.org).

10.1152/physiolgenomics.00055.2001.

REFERENCES

  1. Benos DJ. Now what? Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 265: C1–C2, 1993.[Free Full Text]
  2. Cannon WB. The Way of an Investigator: A Scientist’s Experience in Medical Research. New York: Norton, 1945, pp. 212–213.
  3. Remmers JE. Is the manuscript original or redundant? Judgment calls, scientific integrity, and the law. J Appl Physiol 79: 3–4, 1995.[Free Full Text]




This Article
Full Text (PDF)
Services
Email this article to a friend
Similar articles in this journal
Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Similar articles in PubMed
Alert me to new issues of the journal
Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Articles by Benos, D. J.
Articles citing this Article
PubMed
PubMed Citation
Articles by Benos, D. J.


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online