Read on Twitter
The only ethics training I got in grad school was effectively "don& #39;t photoshop your data" the end.
It& #39;s not just photoshop.
A thread. (1/n)
@AcademicChatter #AcademicChatter
It& #39;s not just photoshop.
A thread. (1/n)
@AcademicChatter #AcademicChatter
We rarely talk about all the murky ways that data are manipulated, cherrypicked & curated to *support* hypotheses, rather than truly *test* hypotheses. (2/n)
Of course, there are those who photoshop Western Blots, and microscopy images. There are those who blatantly change (or invent) data values.
I& #39;m pretty sure we& #39;re all in agreement that this is unethical - that& #39;s clear.
But not all matters of research ethics are so clear. (3/n)
I& #39;m pretty sure we& #39;re all in agreement that this is unethical - that& #39;s clear.
But not all matters of research ethics are so clear. (3/n)
Let& #39;s talk about microscopy: what about a scenario where someone only images the subset of cells with the desired phenotype that supports their hypothesis?
Clearly, this doesn& #39;t reflect the reality of the biology being studied. It& #39;s highly unethical and hard to detect. (4/n)
Clearly, this doesn& #39;t reflect the reality of the biology being studied. It& #39;s highly unethical and hard to detect. (4/n)
It& #39;s nearly impossible for reviewers to detect this kind of misrepresentation, unless they repeat the experiments themselves (and even then, that likely isn& #39;t enough to prove that the microscopist cherrypicked data). (5/n)
Conversations about reliable and reproducible science should start before the studies start, and not a single minute later.
We always talk about ethics at the end: when we& #39;re preparing a paper. What we really ought to be doing is talking about it from the beginning. (6/n)
We always talk about ethics at the end: when we& #39;re preparing a paper. What we really ought to be doing is talking about it from the beginning. (6/n)
Conversations about ethics in research are often treated as & #39;over there& #39; conversations. Ex: "wow, did you see what person from THAT uni in THAT lab did?"
Research ethics is a RIGHT HERE conversation.
We& #39;re doing the science RIGHT HERE & we& #39;re prone to the same errors. (7/n)
Research ethics is a RIGHT HERE conversation.
We& #39;re doing the science RIGHT HERE & we& #39;re prone to the same errors. (7/n)
Research ethics isn& #39;t a once-a-year-at-the-required-seminar type of conversation, either.
It& #39;s an ongoing and evolving conversation that should permeate all of your discussions of your data: in lab meeting, at the bench, on your e-mail, with your labmates etc. (8/n)
It& #39;s an ongoing and evolving conversation that should permeate all of your discussions of your data: in lab meeting, at the bench, on your e-mail, with your labmates etc. (8/n)
There& #39;s a lot of focus on those who commit blatant research fraud & I& #39;m not here to make any excuses for that behaviour.
But our problem is much bigger than these individuals.
(9/n)
But our problem is much bigger than these individuals.
(9/n)
What I& #39;m saying is: the key to research reproducibility is more than not photoshopping your data. It& #39;s a deep and evolving understanding of research ethics as it pertains to your work and each particular technique/experiment/analysis you use. (10/n)
None of us walk into the lab knowing how to execute the most ethical experiment using every single available technique/analysis.
Ethical behaviours, like unethical ones, are learned. (11/n)
Ethical behaviours, like unethical ones, are learned. (11/n)
