Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The University and the Responsible Conduct of Research: Who is Responsible for What?

  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Research misconduct has been thoroughly discussed in the literature, but mainly in terms of definitions and prescriptions for proper conduct. Even when case studies are cited, they are generally used as a repository of “lessons learned.” What has been lacking from this conversation is how the lessons of responsible conduct of research are imparted in the first place to graduate students, especially those in technical fields such as engineering. Nor has there been much conversation about who is responsible for what in training students in Responsible Conduct of Research or in allocating blame in cases of misconduct. This paper explores three seemingly disparate cases of misconduct—the 2004 plagiarism scandal at Ohio University; the famous Robert Millikan article of 1913, in which his reported data selection did not match his notebooks; and the 1990 fabrication scandal in Dr. Leroy Hood’s research lab. Comparing these cases provides a way to look at the relationship between the graduate student (or trainee) and his/her advisor (a relationship that has been shown to be the most influential one for the student) as well as at possibly differential treatment for established researchers and researchers-in-training, in cases of misconduct. This paper reflects on the rights and responsibilities of research advisers and their students and offers suggestions for clarifying both those responsibilities and the particularly murky areas of research-conduct guidelines.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Babbage, C. (1830). Reflections on the decline of science in England and some of its causes. On the frauds of observers (pp. 174–183). London: B. Fellowes.

  • Bird, S. J. (2001). Mentors, advisors and supervisors: Their role in teaching responsible research conduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7, 455–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broad, W., & Wade, N. (1982). Betrayers of truth. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M. S., Riske-Morris, M., & Diaz, S. R. (2007). Casual factors implicated in research misconduct: Evidence from ORI case studies. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13, 395–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleischmann, S. T. (2004). Essential ethics—embedding ethics into an engineering curriculum. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10, 369–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, P. J. (1996). An introduction to research ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2, 443–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garte, S. J. (1995). Guidelines for training in the ethical conduct of scientific research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 1, 59–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guston, D. H. (1999). Changing explanatory frameworks in the U.S. Government’s attempt to define research misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 5, 137–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, H. (1995). Honest research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 1, 49–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollander, R. D. (2001). Mentoring and ethical beliefs in graduate education in science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7, 521–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, R. C. (2004). Data selection and responsible conduct: Was Millikan a fraud? Science and Engineering Ethics, 10, 639–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lau, A. S. (2004). Teaching engineering ethics to first-year college students. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10, 359–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGinn, R. E. (2003). Mind the gaps: An empirical approach to engineering ethics, 1997–2001. Science and Engineering Ethics, 9, 517–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millikan, R. A. (1913). On the elementary electrical charge and the Avogadro content. Physical Review, 2(2), 109–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millikan, R. A. (1950). The autobiography of Robert A. Millikan. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, C., Hart, H., Randall, D., & Nichols, S. (2006). PRiME: Integrating professional responsibility into the engineering curriculum. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12, 273–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Science Foundation. (2009). Grant proposal guide Chapter II, Section C2 (j) special information and supplementary documentation. Proposal and award policies and procedures guide. April 2009. Retrieved from www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf09_29/index.jsp.

  • National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources and Statistics. (2008). Science and engineering degrees: 1966–2006. Detailed statistical tables NSF 08-321. Arlington, VA. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf08321.

  • Newberry, B. (2004). The dilemma of ethics in engineering education. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10, 343–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niaz, M. (2000). The oil drop experiment: A rational reconstruction of the Millikan-Enhrenhaft controversy and its implications for chemistry textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 408–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parrish, D. M. (2004). Scientific misconduct and findings against graduate and medical students. Science and Engineering Ethics, 3, 483–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pascal, C. B. (1999). The history and future of the Office of Research Integrity: Scientific misconduct and beyond. Science and Engineering Ethics, 5, 183–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabins, M. J. (1998). Teaching engineering ethics to undergraduates: Why? What? How? Science and Engineering Ethics, 4, 291–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, L. (1991). Misconduct: Caltech’s trial by fire. Science, 253(5026), 1344–1347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, G. C., Kavussanu, M., & Sprague, R. L. (2001). Mentoring and the impact of the research climate. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7, 525–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segerstrale, U. (1995). Good to the last drop? Millikan stories as “Canned” pedagogy. Science and Engineering Ethics, 3, 197–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sprague, R. L., Daw, J., & Glyn, C. R. (2001). Influences on the ethical beliefs of the graduate students concerning research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7, 507–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomsho, R. (2006). Familiar words: Student plagiarism stirs controversy at Ohio University. The Wall Street Journal, 15 Aug 2006. PDF available at http://www.utsystem.edu/news/clips/dailyclips/2006/0813-0819/UTAustin-WSJ-OHIO-081506.pdf.

  • Whitbeck, C. (1995). Truth and trustworthiness in research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 4, 403–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitbeck, C. (2004). Trust and the future of research. Physics Today, 11, 48–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, D. E., Titus, S. L., & Cornelison, J. B. (2008). Mentoring and research misconduct: An analysis of research mentoring in closed ORI cases. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14, 323–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the National Science Foundation for their support (Grant 0629475) of the literature review reported here; a review has become the basis of our ongoing original research. We would also like to acknowledge the wonderful work of the other two co-PIs on that grant, Steven Nichols and Christy Moore, as well as graduate research assistant Tom Benton.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, The University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA

    Katherine Alfredo & Hillary Hart

Authors
  1. Katherine Alfredo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hillary Hart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hillary Hart.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Alfredo, K., Hart, H. The University and the Responsible Conduct of Research: Who is Responsible for What?. Sci Eng Ethics 17, 447–457 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-010-9217-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-010-9217-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation