ethical constraints toby walsh 4c, cork, ireland 4c.ucc.ie/~tw/ethics

Ethical constraints

Toby Walsh

4C, Cork, Ireland

4c.ucc.ie/~tw/ethics/

Outline

Why bother with ethics? Ethics in the research cycle

Funding Experiments Publication

When things go wrong Whistle-blowing

Resources

Web 4c.ucc.ie/~tw/ethics

Journals Science and Engineering Ethics

www.opragen.co.uk/SEE

Conferences Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, Oct 5 2002,

Cambridge (MA)

Courses Check out your university Ethics must be taught in all UK Masters by Research programs

Why me?

I am not sure what qualifies me

I have faced a number of ethical dilemmas But then so will you

I am neither angel nor hopefully great sinner

A Day @ The Artificial Ethics (AE) Lab

Dr. MacIavelli arrives from Scotland to start a postdoc Email arrives asking him to

review a paper Checks progress of his

experiments Goes for lunch with interview

panel Drafts new conference paper Looks for a suitable

conference to submit to Clocks off early

Why bother?

To protect and benefit You Science Society

Why bother?

To protect your own reputation 3 most important qualities

of a scientist Reputation, reputation,

reputation

A blackened reputation is rarely restored Science is unforgiving

Why bother?

Treat others like you would like to be treated Get ahead by being the

“nicest” person in your area!

Science is very “social” Networking at conferences Job offers, PC membership,

…

Why bother?

To protect science’s reputation Science is largely self-

regulated We therefore enjoy

considerable freedoms But this requires us to

apply high ethical standards

Why bother?

To protect society’s interests Society invests in research

despite many other pressing needs

Society delegates many ethical issues to scientists

In return, society expects scientists to act in society’s best interests

Ethics in the research cycle

Funding Experiments

Data collection & presentation

Publication Authorship Plagiarism Citation Reviewing

Ethics & funding

Who do you take money off? Military or arms industry? Tobacco companies? Nuclear power industry? “Nasty” multi-nationals? Microsoft?

What do they require of you in return?

Ethics & experiments

Human & animal experiments Fortunately rare in CP Many ethical safeguards in

place Your university will surely

have an ethics committee to oversee such experiments

Nonsense, as long as it is done ethically, animal testing in an invaluable scientific tool

Ethics & experiments

Data collection & presentation Fraud Omission Manipulation Theft

First three almost always discovered Science requires results to

be reproducible

Panel is currently investigating possible fraud in claims by Hendrik Schon (Bell Labs) to have built an organic transistor

Ethics & publication

Where many of us face most of our ethical dilemmas! Not surprisingly, science is all about being the first to

publish an idea

Areas of concern Authorship Plagiarism Citation Reviewing

Ethics & authorship

Who do you make co-author of your paper? Colleague Supervisor Lab boss Your friends

They’ll do same in return!

Ethics & authorship

There exist a number of guidelines for co-authorship European Science Foundation“… In the case of joint authors, each should have made a

significant contribution to the creative or analytical process and each has to accept shared responsibility for the content of the resulting article or book. The concept of honorary or “ghost” authorships is inconsistent with good scientific practice…”

Ethics & authorship

Yes, but does this mean I put my PhD supervisor down as co-author or not?

No hard and fast rules It is often (but not always) the case that:

At the start of your PhD, you do. Your supervisor asked the questions, pushed you in the right

directions At some point into your PhD/postdoc, you don’t.

For some, this comes before the end of their PhD For others, this does not come till after their PhD work is in press

in journals

Ethics & authorship

How much does a colleague have to do to become a co-author?

Again, no hard and fast rules My pragmatic advice

Err on the side of caution Nothing more sure to end the working relationship

Ask their opinion In addition, ask for your name to be removed when

appropriate

Ethics & authorship

Some tests Have they read the paper? Do they understand the

paper? If you took sick in the

middle of the seminar, could they finish it?

Ethics & authorship

What order do you list authors?

By “merit” But this can be hard And what about “equal”

merit

Alphabetically Common in a number of

areas

Ethics & authorship

My recommendation: Invent an ordering scheme and stick to it

My scheme Used to be, alphabetical But recently [Colton, Bundy, Walsh 2000], … Now it is, “you argue over where your names go, mine is in last

place” My name is always last so you can tell nothing about how little

I did!

Plagiarism

The presentation of someone else’s work as your own

In exams, cheating In science, theft

Citation

Failure to cite In severe cases, plagiarism In less severe cases,

hinders careers In least severe cases,

hurts & offends

Citation is so easy & painless to do

1. D. Johnson : 10473

2. J. Ullman: 10087

3. A. Gupta: 7696

4. R. Milner: 7276

5. M. Garey: 6044

6. R. Rivest: 6038

7. J. Dongarra: 6024

8. R. Tarjan: 5875

9. L. Lamport: 5777

10. J. Smith: 5314

Ethics & publication

Your are responsible to protect your intellectual property For your funding body For your university/company For your own profit

Software patents are now possible But will annoy your colleagues, …

Ethics & reviewing

Blind reviewing Allows for criticism without

fear

Double blind reviewing “Safeguards” against bias

Open reviewing No one gets to hide!

Ethics & reviewing

You have unpublished work on the same problem You are obviously well qualified As a courtesy, mention possible conflict to

Editor/Program Chair

You already reviewed and rejected paper Look for changes Were previous reasons fatal? Do different standards apply to this

conference/journal/… ?

Ethics & reviewing

This journal submission already appeared at a conference Conferences don’t usually count as archival Does it extend previous appearance?

An almost identical paper already appeared Unless it was at a workshop, inform Editor/Chair If it appeared with a different author, treat very

seriously!

Ethics & reviewing

You have worked with the author in the past Recently

decline due to conflict of interest A long time ago

if people knew both your identities, would they raise their eye-brows?

You work in the same institution as the author Almost always decline

Ethics & reviewing

Papers are sent for review in strictest confidence You cannot share them

with colleagues You cannot admit to

knowing their contents You cannot work on

extending their results

Science is a race to publish, all the credit goes to the first to publish

UK Nolan committee

Standards for public officials (e.g. grant reviewers) Selflessness

Your decisions should be made solely in terms of public interest Integrity

You should avoid financial or other obligations that will conflict Objectivity

Your decisions should be entirely on merit Accountability

You can be asked to justify your decisions Openness

You should be as open as is possible, except where wider public intestest conflicts

Honesty Leadership

Whistle blowing

When things go wrong, what can you do?

Stop & be very sure of your ground People’s careers are in

balance here

Informally approach Editor/Chair Phone is often better than

email!

The perils of email

What you wroteI have concerns about Walsh’s submission. It appears that it borrows techniques from my recent AAAI paper that I sent him last month. I am sure it was an oversight on his behalf not to reference me …

How it was read

There are serious problems with Walsh’s submission. It steals techniques from my recent AAAI paper. Walsh is obviously a thief as I sent him my AAAI paper last month …

Whistle blowing

University level Formal procedures, committees, …

National level NSF Office of Inspector General NIH Office of Research Integrity (~10 proven cases/year) Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty Norwegian National Committee on Scientific Dishonesty German DFG Ombudsman (actually three people) …

Enough of me

Let’s open this up! What ethical dilemmas

have you faced? What situations concern

you?

Outline

Why bother with ethics? Ethics in the research cycle

Funding Experiments Publication

When things go wrong Whistle-blowing

Conclusions

To misquote T.J. Watson THINK ethically

Science depends on good ethics They are few black and white decisions Most are shades of grey Don’t be afraid to seek advice

Supervisor Mentor …