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.
Thanks to the link above submitted by Don Shaw, I was able to down load a PDF copy and read manual. Sorry to say, I was very disappointed. Below are passages that I found significant. The first two are good, but there is no rigorous enforcement. The rest is motherhood sanctioning what already exists. I was hoping for more.
“Given the expectation that data will be accessible, researchers who refuse to share the evidentiary basis behind their conclusions, or the materials needed to replicate published experiments, fail to maintain the standards of science.”
“Some forms of data undergo extensive analysis before being recorded; consequently, sharing those data can require sharing the software and sometimes the hardware used to analyze them.”
“Science is largely a self-regulating community. Though government regulates some aspects of research, the research community is the source of most of the standards and practices to which researchers are expected to adhere.”
“Scientists and their institutions should act to discourage questionable research practices (QRPs) through a broad range of formal and informal methods in the research environment.”
“The circumstances surrounding potential violations of scientific standards are so varied that it is impossible to lay out a checklist of what should be done. Suspicions are best raised in the form of questions rather than allegations. Expressing concern about a situation or asking for clarification generally works better than making charges.”
“Researchers have a professional obligation to perform research and present the results of that research as objectively and as accurately as possible. When they become advocates on an issue, they may be perceived by their colleagues and by members of the public as biased. But researchers also have the right to express their convictions and work for social change, and these activities need not undercut a rigorous commitment to objectivity in research.”
And my question as a lay person, Do you just look the other way at the likes of scientists with such renowned backgrounds “Humping for the political elites so they can get their piece of the pie while those with just an inquisitive mind question the obvious gaps and get placed in the flat earth-er category and disregarded as inconsequential.
It’s more than just looking for grants people, this is a way of taxing us to death on a phony principle that they refuse to reveal.
I’m surprised it doesn’t have a yellow and black cover, like the rest of the “Dummies Guide to ” series…
I was taught to write scientific reports in High School and University in exactly the same manner as Dusty by teachers who were also qualified scientists in their respective fields. When did the standards change?
Or is it more that theses “climate scientists” believe they are above such mundane trivialities?
Pam, they already have this. They called it Asberger syndrome.
I remember learing the basics of report writing at school and university, way back in the 1940’s and again in the 1970’s.
How has this been lost?
Has anybody noticed that there are no responses from trolls, nor even from more honest supporters of the AGW meme, (if I can call it that) who often post here.
Are they too ashamed?
Pwl says:
QUOTE IN PART
Now, it would be really great if we could collect together ALL the alleged climate science papers of “note” and request all the data and methods from the authors …..
mark the status of their compliance with the scientific method standards, those that provided data, raw data, details of manipulations, methods, statistical equations, software, etc…, everything needed to reproduce the paper’s conclusions (or refute it). Oh, and a list of all papers that it references and a list of all papers that reference it. In addition a list of all the “claims” or “conclusions” and “assumptions” made in each paper would be fantastic so that as each “claim, conclusion, or assumption” is refuted it becomes clear which papers are refuted and nullified in part or in whole.
Then we grade the papers and see how well the climate scientists and their papers actually stack up against the standards of the scientific method and the standards of the philosophy of science.
This project is as important as the Surface Stations project, for it cuts to the very heart of the matter.
UNQUOTE
I agree completely with Prl.
This may be the way to get the attention of the media, and with that, the attention of the world’s politicans.
Since ClimateGate, all the major AGW claims have been disproved, but the politicans just continue unabashed. The voting public in many countries now see AGW as a failed concept, so governments are now pushing AGW restrictions through administrative fiat.
This will only be stopped if the true facts can be brought out in the light of day.
Prl’s proposal merits much thought and discussion.
It would require direction by a group of people of the highest intregrity and standing, including senior scientists, but also judges and others from various walks of life.
To get it started it requires a group of entheusiasts who can at the apropriate time step back when a committee of heavies is formed.
Anthony or moderator Charles, this deserves a post on its own.
Apologies pwl.
I can’t even type three letter correctly.
Dan.
Still, for all their obvious dishonesty and lackadaisical approach to science, they must be doing something right. Why? Well, because modern temperature records derived from completely different sources by completely different people are in reasonable agreement. Unless perhaps Roy Spencer is an AGW mole!
It’s all good AusieDan… you got the concept.
@JJ
I agree that ‘plausible beliveability’ couched in enough sciencey phrases with just a dark touch of denialist epithets is the main communication from the AGW groupings. It is for the most part preaching to the choir. The choir will no doubt remain – Jimmy Swaggert did well enough after his fall – but the pews are emptying.
I for one would be content to stop referring to the non-science and concentrate on supporting the real work that needs to be done. Stop raging against the darkness because in the end, it is still dark.
A good venture might be an online WUWT magazine of reviewed articles, to be followed by a print version. The readership is already here. It needs a deal with someone in the publishing business.
Excellent article by Joe D’Aleo, with numerous links & mentions of Anthony Watts….very interesting, and highly recommended!
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/6440/Is-It-Really-The-Warmest-Ever
I liked this inclusion:
Dwight Eisenhower in his 1961 Farewell Address to the Nation warned: “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.”
Jeremy said @ur momisugly February 6, 2011 at 5:29 pm
” Pamela Gray says:
February 6, 2011 at 6:49 am
If this area of human behavior disease goes much further, those of you who are shy will have your own little title for your disease and a special education category in which to bring legal suit against the school system.
Pam, they already have this. They called it Asberger syndrome.”
Aspies ain’t necessarily shy. Here’s my list of what makes The Pompous Git an Aspie:
1. He spends more time involved with objects and physical systems than with people;
2. He communicates less than others do;
3. He tends to follow his own desires and beliefs rather than paying attention to, or being easily influenced by, others’ desires and beliefs;
4. He shows relatively little interest in what the social group is doing, or being a part of it;
5. He has strong, persistent interests;
6. He is very accurate at perceiving the details of information;
7. He notices and recalls things other people do not;
8. His view of what is relevant and important in a situation often fails to coincide with others;
9. He is fascinated by patterns and systems in the world — visual, numeric, alphanumeric, etc;
10. He collects things: books and records (music) mainly, but also certain types of information;
11. He has a strong preference for experiences that are controllable rather than unpredictable;
12. He has an IQ that places him in the top 2% of the population;
13. He’s happier in his own company than with crowds;
14. He is naive;
15. He has a strong sense of justice;
16. He takes what people say literally; that is, he’s relatively impervious to irony, double-meaning, subtext etc.
Based on Simon Baron-Cohen’s work.
The CAGW theory is not addressable by science. It is a question of belief surounded by scientific side issues – with most of those raised not subject to empirical verification and of the “study” (not labaratory experiment) variety.
Taking the statistical and research conduct classes for the non-empirical dicipline of accounting, I was struck by what would be the honest approach that the date collected could really never demonstrate anything but types and degrees of correlation. The “Conclusion” sections never the less required something more than that to get attention. So every research project is concluded with “X may or likely mean Y, however further research could reveal more of the same.” You always get around the absence of proof with qualifiers like “likely” or “could.” Add media, money and politicians and you’ve got yourself a gig.
A less-talked about but serious flaw in the “science paradigm” as practiced by the journal-chasers and status-seekers is the “positive results bias”.
A refutation or dis-confirmation actually conveys more information, and is more valuable, than an (apparent) positive result. Yet it’s very difficult to get such study results published, not to mention get funding for a replication study that will likely restore H0 instead of H1, H2, &/or H3!
“If I was Science Uber-Czar” I would require that every journal publish an equal number of pages and articles over the course of a year with “failure to confirm” previous claims to the positive ones. It would sweep away a lot of nonsense, and put status and funding in the hands of much better practitioners of the art of truthful data-seeking than is now the case.
And Climate Science and the Hokey Team would go out in a brief but violent blaze of glory.
Excellent column from Delingpole on this topic, with VERY generous compliments to WUWT! Enjoy!
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100075232/realclimategate-hits-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-peer-review/