Bruce Foutch writes about this book in Tips and Notes to WUWT, Phil Jones might benefit from a gift copy.
ON BEING A SCIENTIST
A GUIDE TO RESPONSIBLE CONDUCT IN RESEARCH
THIRD EDITION
This book is now available from The National Academies Press. Some very interesting guidelines for scientists in this book.
from page 9:
“Because of the critical importance of methods, scientific papers must include a description of the procedures used to produce the data, sufficient to permit reviewers and readers of a scientific paper to evaluate not only the validity of the data but also the reliability of the methods used to derive those data. If this information is not available, other researchers may be less likely to accept the data and the conclusions drawn from them. They also may be unable to reproduce accurately the conditions under which the data were derived.
The best methods will count for little if data are recorded incorrectly or haphazardly. The requirements for data collection differ among disciplines and research groups, but researchers have a fundamental obligation to create and maintain an accurate, accessible, and permanent record of what they have done in sufficient detail for others to check and replicate their work. …”
I thought it telling their choice of using the phrase “…sufficient to permit reviewers AND readers…” and “If this information is not available, other researchers [AND readers] may be less likely to accept the data and the conclusions drawn from them.”
Also thought this significant:
“…researchers have a fundamental obligation to create and maintain an accurate, accessible, and permanent record…”
==============================================================
This could be used as a response to Climategate (on the importance of making code, data, and methods available), note the date of the press release was prior to Climategate, but it is very prescient.
Date: March 27, 2009
Contacts: Sara Frueh, Media Relations Officer
Edgar Acajabon, Media Relations Assistant
Office of News and Public Information
202-334-2138; e-mail <news@nas.edu>
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
New Edition of ‘On Being a Scientist’ Offers Early-Career Researchers Guidance on Conducting Research Responsibly, Avoiding Misconduct
WASHINGTON — Cases of clear scientific misconduct have made headlines in recent years, among them the fabrication of data by a team of stem-cell researchers at Seoul National University and the fraudulent manipulation of photos submitted to the Journal of Cell Biology. Though obvious violations of professional standards may be uncommon, less-dramatic ethical questions confront many scientists in the course of a career: How should credit for a discovery be allocated among a team of researchers? How should a scientist respond if he discovers errors — his own or others’ — in a published analysis? And how can a researcher recognize when a conflict of interest could bias the results of a study she hopes to undertake?
These and other questions are explored in the third edition of On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research, new from the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. The volume offers researchers — particularly early-career scientists and their mentors — guidance on how to conduct research responsibly, avoid misconduct such as fabrication and plagiarism, and think about how to respond in complex ethical situations.
“This updated edition of ‘On Being a Scientist’ will be an important catalyst of discussions among students and their professors, academic and industrial scientists and engineers, managers, administrators and policymakers alike,” said Carolyn Bertozzi, chair of the committee that wrote the report, professor of chemistry and molecular and cell biology, University of California, and director of the Molecular Foundry at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. “We hope that this resource will inspire readers to explore the issues in an open forum and influence the conduct of science worldwide in a very positive way.”
The report discusses recent real-world instances of misconduct, as well as hypothetical case studies to help scientists think about principles that should guide decision making. For example, one case study explores the situation of a researcher who discovers a coding error in a program used to model the spread of infections in populations — a model that has informed two of the researchers’ published papers. The error doesn’t change the average time it takes infections to spread, but it does increase the amount of uncertainty in the model’s results. Questions included in the case study explore the obligations the researchers owe their professional colleagues in terms of correcting the published record, and whether there are options beyond publishing a formal correction.
The book’s intent is not to state definite conclusions about what should be done in particular situations, said the authoring committee, but rather to explore the reasons for ethical choices and to foster discussion in orientations, graduate seminars, and informal meetings. “[M]any beginning researchers are not learning enough about the standards of science through research experiences,” noted the presidents of the three academies in the book’s preface.
Among the topics addressed are the responsibilities of advisers and their advisees, appropriate ways to share research results, the treatment of people and animals involved in studies, and mistakes and negligence in research. Also included is an extensive list of books and articles for further reading on responsible conduct in science.
The report was sponsored by the National Science Foundation. The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council make up the National Academies. They are independent, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology, and health policy advice under a congressional charter.
Copies of On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research, Third Edition are available from the National Academies Press; tel. 202-334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242 or on the Internet at http://www.nap.edu. Reporters may obtain a copy from the Office of News and Public Information (contacts listed above).
# # #
You can preview the book online here at NAS or click to image above to get a copy at Amazon in paperback.
<object classid=”clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000″ codebase=”http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=8,0,0,0″ width=”175″ height=”250″ id=”napbookwrapper” align=”middle”>
<param name=”allowScriptAccess” value=”always” />
<param name=”movie” value=”http://www.nap.edu/napbookwrapper.swf” />
<param name=”quality” value=”high” />
<param name=”wmode” value=”transparent” />
<param name=”flashvars” value=”wid=691045412420110205230251&record_id=12192″ />
<embed src=”http://www.nap.edu/napbookwrapper.swf” quality=”high” flashvars=”wid=691045412420110205230251&record_id=12192″ wmode=”transparent” bgcolor=”#ffffff” width=”175″ height=”250″ name=”napbookwrapper” align=”middle” allowScriptAccess=”always” allowFullScreen=”false” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” pluginspage=”http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer”></embed>
</object>
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Wonderful post,
But the people we deal with day to day don’t care about scientific principles.
Would Gavin care about the substance of the publication subject to this post? I suspect not. He’s not a scientist. Nor is Gore, he’s a propagandist that uses phrases from scientists. So who do we reach with this report? Hopefully it is scientists that care about their reputations more than their wallets.
The first two paragraphs you quote from page 9 were exactly what I was taught 35 years ago.
There were no “black boxes” for data analysis then – you had to do it yourself which meant that you understood it, and also had to explain what you’d done.
It’s now too easy to use software packages without a full understanding of what’s being done to the data …
The problem with those mediocre climate accountants is, that they attained their climate superstar positions not through the scientific process, but just the opposite,
firstly, because they controlled the data and allowed nobody except their allies to look at it and their “science”, let alone find errors in it,
secondly, if anybody managed to slip through this barricade, there was/is a second line of discrimination in place through the control of the peer review process and boards of journals,
and finally they succeded unchallenged, because their message pleased powerful leftist interests and big money with surprisingly similar agendas.
What is the point of such a guide when there is no meaningful enforcement?
Could be a good present for members of the team, or maybe they could write a review of the book and sign it for students – a book with Michael Mann’s signature might be a curiosity on ebay one day – could we give it as a book prize for the best endorsement quote NOT given by a team member, would have to be mythical of course, as it is not to “their” science standard operating procedures.
I’d sure like to see the NSF follow their own guidance when it comes to climate science – in their own journals especially.
Unless I’m misreading something, the date of the press release is March 2009, but Climategate broke in November 2009, as I recall. We use this book as one of the texts for one of the required courses in our graduate environmental science program at the Univeristy of Guam: EV508 Scientific Competence & Integrity. Climategate is one of our case studies now.
REPLY: Sorry, terrible writing on my part, I just banged out the sentence way too fast. I’ve rewritten that sentence to make it clear that I meant it can be used as a response to Climategate issues, not that it was a response. – Anthony
March 27, 2009 is months BEFORE Climategate. How could it be a response? Or do you mean the text above the dashed line is the response?
That aside, the guidelines are good. It’s just too bad they are simply ignored in the heavily government-funded field of climate science. Climate science is an exception.
REPLY: Mea Culpa – bad sentence structure – see response in comment above – Anthony
Ah but, Jones, Mann et al aren’t scientists, so it doesn’t apply to them. /sarc off
And this should also be noted by all people in the discuss over GW. Trouble is as has been demostrated by certain people if skeptical people say this should be adhered to it will simply be ignored through association. Which is a shame.
What is happening with the sun is truly amazing probably of historic proportions easily the most significant attributable factor for climate from past records
How come no one in the climate sciences has read it? Or if they have, ignored it’s advice?
“ON BEING A SCIENTIST
A GUIDE TO RESPONSIBLE CONDUCT IN RESEARCH”
Where does that leave Mann, Hansen, Jones et al? and the Warmistas that quote their results ad nauseam?
I thought Eric Blair’s Nineteen Eighty-Four was their manual.
Admirable though it might be, I find it unbelievable that such a book needs to be written; what is going on in our schools and universities?
When I was at school experiments conducted during science lessons had to be written up. The general format expected was:
Introduction: – the background to why the experiment was being conducted
Aim: – What the experiment was intended to reveal
Method: – How the experiment was to be conducted to meet the aim; how equipment was to be configured and what measurements were to be taken.
Analysis: – What methods were to be used to analyse the data
Results: – All measurements were to be logged
Analysis Results: – All calculations and graphs were to be presented
Error: – All sources of error were to be identified along with their impact on the results
Conclusions: – Report the success (or not) of the experiment with respect only to the original Aim.
Recommendations: – Usually revolved around how future experiments of a similar nature could be conducted with reduced error.
This was the process in a bulk standard secondary school (admittedly 50 years ago); and now scientists need a “How to do Science” book. …………. Unbelievable.
Talking to a civil engineering lecturer of mine, he was quite surprised when I asked him if he had his program code reviewed when he submitted a paper. He clearly saw the code as nothing more than a tool and, because he wrote it, it did exactly what he wanted it to do.
I am a software engineer and I know how easy it is to fall into that trap. All code needs rigorous testing and peer review. Without this as a minimum it cannot be trusted which therefore invalidates any result obtained.
KenB says:
February 6, 2011 at 1:33 am
“Could be a good present for members of the team,” … my thoughts entirely. I was just wondering if it were available from Amazon.
“a book with Michael Mann’s signature might be a curiosity on ebay one day”
I think the bidding will go like this … Michael who?
Whilst these people might seem important for those in the know at the time, you just have to look at other scares to see that the public don’t remember anyone involved.
The public remember heros or the really nasty villains … we don’t remember second rate incompetent scientists!
Millennium bug … name a single person involved!
Swine flu scare … name a single person involved!
Piltdown man … name a single person involved!
Phlogiston, the ether,
The only scare I remember a name from is our UK salmonella in eggs … and that’s just because Currie slept with the prime minister!
The State of Virginia should enter this book into evidence in their FOI lawsuit against the University of Virginia.
So, basically those of us who learned what science we know a very long time ago are not imagining things. This is how science is done. The NAS itself agrees with our points. We aren’t wrong. Jones et al and Mann et al are doing it wrong.
Duh.
And Anthony, it says that those who have sided with you and Steve and Lord Monkton are not crazy, but correct in supporting demands that the data AND methods be fully made available and be fully archived.
What can I say but, “YEAY!”
My graduate advisor was (I’m sure still is) a very honest researcher. I met other professors who were not. Now when I look back through the years, my advisor is still passionate about research. Some of the dishonest ones became deans and then college presidents. What am I concluding? Those truly interested in the science tend to be honest about the research because they really are trying to uncover scientific understanding. Those that are more interested in their personal career advancement, or agendas beside the basic science, may “cook the data” to keep advancing their career.
“Cooking the data” really has no advantages if you are truly trying to uncover scientific understanding.
Paul Coombes says:
February 6, 2011 at 2:54 am
Talking to a civil engineering lecturer of mine, he was quite surprised when I asked him if he had his program code reviewed when he submitted a paper. He clearly saw the code as nothing more than a tool and, because he wrote it, it did exactly what he wanted it to do….”
In Pharma everything we do is scrutinized by agencies. Everything as to be reviewed, audited, and source documents must be kept for a hundred years. It’s a giant pain to conduct science in this environment. If you run a calculation in Excel someone else has to check it by hand calculation ( unless the software has been validated which can take years). But when it comes to public health and safety the stakes are high.
Maybe climate research should be conducted under the watchful eye of the FDA? That would definitely wipe out the shenanigans of Mann et al.
Looks interesting – I look forward to leafing through a copy although – as I’m nearer retirement now than embarking on a fresh new career for decades to come – maybe I’ll settle for prodding my local library into getting it for me.
I hope there’s reference in there to Richard Feynmann – not only was he a wonderful human being and great thinker, but he, too, emphasised the need for an honest scientist to be both transparent to the nth degree, and utterly merciless in criticising his or her own work. And (although there can’t be many WUWT readers who haven’t come across him!) if you haven’t met Feynmann yet, I envy you – you have a spectacularly uplifting, enlightening and enjoyable experience to look forward to.
Surely this publication contains exactly those strictures that, “Post-normal Science”, is designed to avoid?
Jones, Mann et al aren’t scientists by the classic definition of what it means to be a ‘scientist’ or to think ‘scientifically’. This being the case (and if you agree with me), then someone who really does understand science should write a public indictment of the hokey team and show why they are not really scientists.
This book would not go amiss in the library of the Royal Society, whose president seems to have forgotten the first principles of the scientific method and ethical conduct. If Sir Paul Nurse could steel himself away from having to work at his laboratory bench in order to read the book, he might get a few ideas on a possible theme for next year’s Christmas lecture.
A possible title:
Why not to call your scientific peers “Deniers”