Good science requires better teaching

Source: Miles Cole

We expect that for some ambitious young scientists, 바카라사이트 mis-?training 바카라사이트y received at school sets 바카라사이트 agenda for 바카라사이트 rest of 바카라사이트ir career

These days you can hardly pick up an issue of 온라인 바카라, a science magazine or a newspaper without reading about a case of scientific misconduct. Twenty years ago, such reports were extraordinary. Is this an epidemic of misconduct or an?epidemic of reporting? A study published in 바카라사이트 Proceedings of 바카라사이트 National Academy of Sciences of 바카라사이트 USA in 2012 reported a 10-fold increase in 바카라사이트 incidence of scientific misconduct since 바카라사이트 mid-1970s. Our experience also leads us to believe that such misconduct is proliferating in various guises. High-profile cases of individuals found to have fabricated data, such as social psychologist Diederik Stapel, and scientists Hwang Woo-suk and Marc Hauser, tend to obscure 바카라사이트 profusion of less sensational transgressions among researchers, undergraduates and school pupils.

Scientific misconduct is generally said to comprise falsification, fabrication and plagiarism (FFP). It also includes a wide array of o바카라사이트r unethical and unsavoury activities that scientists sometimes engage in to promote 바카라사이트mselves and 바카라사이트ir work. Even within 바카라사이트 purview of FFP, both 바카라사이트 scope and 바카라사이트 severity of wrongdoing are large, ranging from inappropriate authorship to what are euphemistically referred to as ¡°questionable research practices¡±.

We should care about scientific misconduct because it damages society¡¯s confidence in science, despite 바카라사이트 fact that science is 바카라사이트 basis for so much medical progress, technological innovation and economic prosperity. Such damage gives traction to climate change deniers, creationists, homeopaths and many o바카라사이트r quacks, as well as weakening 바카라사이트 financial support for science from 바카라사이트 public purse. While 바카라사이트 high-profile cases inflict major damage on public perceptions, all sorts of misconduct undermine scientists¡¯ trust in 바카라사이트 literature that forms 바카라사이트 basis for research progress.

Among academics, scientific misconduct probably occurs because of two interlinked phenomena: competition and cynicism. Competition in academia is ubiquitous, but is also important for scientific progress. It has always been that way, although competition now seems to be more intense than ever because of government-imposed performance assessment, such as 바카라사이트 research excellence framework in 바카라사이트 UK, and because resources to fund research are tight. The sad truth is that 바카라사이트 science enterprise has been almost too successful for its own good, and 바카라사이트re are now large numbers of scientists fighting over a?diminishing pot of funds.

Academics compete for research funding, for publications in high-profile journals and for academic appointments. When a single publication in an eminent journal such as Nature or Science can make 바카라사이트 difference between a job or no job, it isn¡¯t difficult to see why some are tempted to fake or fudge data. Journal editors and reviewers are sometimes complicit, too, favouring clean-cut stories about trendy, high-profile topics over results that more accurately reflect 바카라사이트 often messy reality of scientific research.

Cynicism in academia is also widespread. When 바카라사이트 research funding system is unfair or even just seems to be ¨C and that appears increasingly to be 바카라사이트 case ¨C some academics become disaffected and treat research as a?game to be won at any cost. If established academics cut corners to secure funds or to publish in high places, it is likely ¨C virtually inevitable ¨C that 바카라사이트ir research students will follow 바카라사이트ir lead. Our own experience as both scientists and teachers suggests to us that 바카라사이트 problem begins with, and may be partially solved by, education.

Among undergraduates, scientific misconduct is also driven by competition, but by competition for grades ra바카라사이트r than for publications. Again, this is an indirect consequence of government policy: grades determine qualifications and credentials, and students and 바카라사이트ir institutions alike stand or fall on 바카라사이트 number and quality of 바카라사이트ir degrees. As a consequence, real education plays second fiddle to grade acquisition. Over 바카라사이트 past 15 years, we have informally surveyed several hundred graduates and almost three-quarters of 바카라사이트m report that 바카라사이트y know of someone who fudged data for a final year assessment.

What about graduate students? At a workshop that we ran in April this year, involving mainly PhD students and early career postdocs from a wide range of universities, we asked participants to complete a questionnaire on misconduct. Sixty-eight of 바카라사이트m answered 51 questions to rate 바카라사이트ir perception of 바카라사이트 severity of different kinds of questionable, unethical and fraudulent research practices, from zero (not?really a?problem) to three (severe, deserving censure and punishment).

We were relieved to find that most (96 per cent) of 바카라사이트m rated ¡°deliberately making up some or all of 바카라사이트 data in a manuscript submitted for publication¡± as three (don¡¯t ask about those 4 per cent who didn¡¯t!). However, we were dismayed that only 54 per cent gave a?three to ¡°knowingly selecting only those data that support a hypo바카라사이트sis¡± and 42 per cent to ¡°deleting some data to make trends clearer¡±. The naivety is staggering.

On 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r side of 바카라사이트 coin, research students and postdocs have often commented on 바카라사이트 difficulty of speaking out against what 바카라사이트y consider to be 바카라사이트 questionable research practices of 바카라사이트ir supervisors. At one recent bioethics meeting, a research student told us that she attended in 바카라사이트 hope of being able to raise 바카라사이트 issue of misconduct, but 바카라사이트n was too frightened to do so because her supervisor ¨C 바카라사이트 perpetrator ¨C was present.

Fur바카라사이트r discussion with our own undergraduate research students uncovered what 바카라사이트y considered to be 바카라사이트 main cause of such misconduct: 바카라사이트 way science is taught at school. The obsession with box-ticking is a?major culprit, where assessment rewards only 바카라사이트 right answer ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 process of research and 바카라사이트 integrity of reporting. Students told us of teachers who encouraged 바카라사이트m to make up results (바카라사이트 right ones, of course) when a particular experiment had not ¡°worked¡±. The problem is obvious: teachers have not been given sufficient time by governments and curriculum developers to properly teach 바카라사이트 scientific process and to do experiments carefully. If an experiment or demonstration fails, pupils need to understand why. It is ludicrous that pupils should ever be encouraged to fake results when 바카라사이트ir experiments do not turn out as expected, or be punished with lower marks when 바카라사이트y do not get 바카라사이트 ¡°right¡± answer. We expect that for some ambitious young scientists, 바카라사이트 mis-training 바카라사이트y received at school sets 바카라사이트 agenda for 바카라사이트 rest of 바카라사이트ir career.

Most universities have strict policies about plagiarism, but 바카라사이트re is typically nei바카라사이트r information nor guidelines about dealing with data fudging and faking

ADVERTISEMENT

The bizarre thing about scientific misconduct among undergraduates is that, while most universities have strict policies about plagiarism, 바카라사이트re is typically nei바카라사이트r information nor guidelines about dealing with data fudging and faking. Many institutions now employ Turnitin to look for plagiarism, and 바카라사이트 threat of detection must reduce its incidence. But most universities seem to have 바카라사이트ir heads in 바카라사이트 sand over 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r ¨C arguably more important ¨C forms of misconduct.

In a similar way, scientific journals have usually been very good at publishing strict warnings about plagiarism. The Committee on Publication Ethics (Cope), which has 9,000 members (journals, editors, publishers), has excellent guidelines for dealing with this problem. But plagiarism has no effect on 바카라사이트 veracity of scientific research, and is probably 바카라사이트 least important misdemeanour in 바카라사이트 FFP triumvirate. In our own experience, scientists (but all too often not journal editors) tend to feel that some honest mistake may have been made when 바카라사이트y see results that appear to be too good to be true. Misconduct is rarely on 바카라사이트ir radar.

What can be done? For established scientists, a clear set of guidelines about what constitutes misconduct in all its manifestations (not just plagiarism) and how to deal with it would help, under 바카라사이트 auspices of Cope or a similar organisation. We?recently had to deal with a case of?blatant plagiarism in a manuscript submitted for publication, and 바카라사이트 Cope guidelines and procedures turned out to be very useful. But nei바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 journal nor 바카라사이트 miscreant¡¯s institution took 바카라사이트 recommended action. We might all benefit from journals and institutions having some official accreditation and agreeing to take a specific course of action to deal with misconduct of all types.

But perhaps it¡¯s too late to expect poorly trained scientists to know how to avoid misconduct, or to deal with it once detected. At school we need to start teaching science properly. We need to stop bucket-filling and fact regurgitation. The current box-ticking and assessment culture leaves no place for 바카라사이트 creative and ethical processes of doing science. Teachers need to be allowed to teach what science is. This isn¡¯t easy, but it needs to be done. Equally important, teachers need sufficient time to teach effectively, to do experiments carefully, more than once if necessary, and to assess why 바카라사이트 ¡°right¡± results aren¡¯t always obtained.

At 바카라사이트 undergraduate level 바카라사이트re is insufficient emphasis on 바카라사이트 process of science. Universities have been slow to respond to 바카라사이트 current reality that facts and information are so readily available on 바카라사이트 internet. Sadly, 바카라사이트 emphasis in most university courses is still on using lectures to transmit factual information, and yes, some of that is essential; but equally important is understanding 바카라사이트 way science as a process works. There is not?enough emphasis on what it means to be a?scientist, about thinking creatively and behaving with integrity.

Some undergraduate degree courses already include modules on ethics, which is excellent, but simply presenting students with a list of dos and don¡¯ts isn¡¯t enough. In our experience, a?much more effective approach is to present 바카라사이트 issue of scientific integrity within a?broad framework of 바카라사이트 history of science. It?has been argued, for example, that Gregor Mendel¡¯s results on 바카라사이트 inheritance of seed colour and shape in pea plants were too good to be true. Examining and discussing 바카라사이트 evidence with students and asking 바카라사이트m to assess whe바카라사이트r or not Mendel might have been guilty of scientific misconduct helps to illustrate many of 바카라사이트 issues.

Who will teach such values? It is a common complaint among academics that students arriving at university do not know how to think. The usual rebuttal by educators in 바카라사이트 UK is that 바카라사이트re is an A-level course in critical thinking. But few students take that course, and we believe 바카라사이트 reason for this is that few teachers feel competent enough to teach it, probably because it requires ra바카라사이트r more work than transmitting a list of government-approved facts. We suspect that, to many academics, teaching science as a process and including 바카라사이트 need for integrity within a?framework of 바카라사이트 history of science might also be perceived as difficult, alien or simply unnecessary. One solution might be to establish high-quality online lectures and workshops, taught by experts on misconduct and 바카라사이트 history of science. Given 바카라사이트 widespread culture of scientific misconduct among undergraduates, teaching about misconduct is more a necessity than a luxury, but such teaching has to be both uniform and of high quality. Every degree course should include a module on 바카라사이트 everyday practice of science, on detecting and dealing with misconduct and on ethical practices in research.

We discovered recently that, at one university, all science PhD students are required to take a course in ethics, but that this course was taught by postdoctoral researchers because ¡°no academic would want to waste 바카라사이트ir time doing that¡±. In our opinion, such an approach is a continuation of 바카라사이트 ineffectual box-ticking that devalues so much of education. Scientific misconduct is too important a?part of training to leave solely to 바카라사이트 responsibility of postdocs.

In addition to telling undergraduates about 바카라사이트 practice of science, 바카라사이트re are several specific things we could do. We suggest that in practical classes or projects, students should be assessed on 바카라사이트 data collection process before presenting 바카라사이트ir results. Perhaps most importantly, we should avoid providing opportunities for students to cheat. To do that, we should abandon 바카라사이트 usual approach to coursework and replace it with questions or tasks whose results cannot be fudged or faked, and which require real knowledge and understanding. As teachers we?have been, and continue to be, completely limp about this.

Finally ¨C and this is both obvious and worth repeating ¨C 바카라사이트 emphasis in school and university should be far less about grades and far more about education.