Physics 578A              Assignments           Spring 2003

Week of June 2

• The speakers this week will be Kathryn Miknaitis, who will talk about Pathological Science, and Gordon Watts, who will tell us briefly about a case of plagiarism that has come his way since he spoke to us earlier.
• I would like to lead a short discussion about what we should be doing about education in this area. I encourage you to read chapter 5 of Integrity in Scientific Research: Creating an Environment that Promotes Responsible Conduct, published by IOM, 2002, to see what ideas about education are suggested there.
• I want to collect your written thoughts on what we should be doing sometime this quarter.

Week of May 27

• The speaker this week will be Prof. Malcolm Parks, Associate Vice Provost for Research, who will talk about financial conflict of interest.
• I do not have any recommended readings from him, but I suggest you read two relevant chapters from Derek Bok's book Universities in the Marketplace, published by Princeton University Press, 2003. I did not find this in time to get it as a Library reserve book (it is checked out), but I have made photocopies of chapters 4 (Scientific Research) and 8 (Protecting the Integrity of Research) which are now on the ereserve site.
• By the end of the Quarter I would like to have written views from all the registered students of where we should go from here. Should some such course be a regular feature of our program, and, if so, what sort of a course? If not, or in addition, should we have some alternative way of confronting students and junior researchers with the issues that arise in this area? I shall be happy to accept contributions written jointly by two or three students, and I would like to see drafts presented at an appropriate time.

Week of May 19

• There are two presentations this week, by Khan Mahmud and Harry Rommel.
• Khan will be talking about the Ninov case.  He writes “I will focus on record keeping and individual responsibility in a collaborative environment, and the details of the Ninov case.”  Recommended readings are:
• Physics Today article: http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-55/iss-9/p15.html
• Misconduct: The stars who fell to earth, Nature 420, 728 - 729 (2002). http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v420/n6917/full/420728a_fs.html
• And also the article "Taken for a ride" in New York Times. This article is in the ereserve site.
• Harry will link his talk on record keeping to the topics of accountability and whistleblowing as exemplified by the Baltimore Case. He notes that web links on record keeping are rather sparse in the physical sciences, and that he could not find a UW policy statement.
• He writes:

In my searches I found that web links on record keeping are somewhat
sparse, especially in the physical sciences.  Interestingly, while many schools and departments have explicit policies put forth on record keeping, I found nothing of the sort here at UW. If someone knows otherwise please correct me... The biomedical community seems to fare slightly better.

• The best synopsis I found was this page from Fox Chase Cancer Center: http://www.fccc.edu/ethics/RecordKeeping.html
• The NIH has a good webpage describing their policy on data sharing. There are some nuggets on good record keeping hiding therein. Take a look at the 'NIH guide notice' and'Other Data Sharing Documents': http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/
• The NSF has this general grant conditions statement (we've seen this before, but note just what kind of records should be kept: http://www.nsf.gov/home/grants/gc102.pdf
• While my talk is ostensibly to focus on record keeping, I feel that a bit of discussion about oversight and whistleblowing is necessary as this is one of the many reasons good records of/in science should be kept. Allegations of misconduct could indeed be the result of poor record keeping rather than an intent to enveigle.
• From the MIT website, David Baltimore speaks on trust in science. This serves as a good intro to the "Baltimore Case": http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/2002/baltimore.html
• Here's a 1991 MIT article where the NIH accuses one of the scientists of falsifying data: http://www-tech.mit.edu/V111/N15/balt.15n.html
• These news articles in Science give a bit more detail about the case mentioned above (and note the final result): Science 272:p.1864, 1996 and 273:p.873, 1996
• Here's an interesting article about whistleblowing in science: http://www.the-scientist.com/yr1996/mar/lastresort_960318.html,
• And a continuation (more about Stewart and Fader): http://www.the-scientist.com/yr1993/nov/hoke_p1_931101.html
• For those who want a lengthier horror story, I recommend The Baltimore Case: a trial of politics, science and character by
  Daniel J Kevles,  1998; Norton & Co. NY.
• Here's one more
reason to keep a good notebook: your patent may depend on it... http://www.pillsburywinthrop.com/topics/sample.asp?id=000057927444

Week of May 12

• Jens Koch will be talking about plagiarism.
• Articles that he has recommended are
  • The Plague of Plagiarism Persists in Modern Science in The Scientist 6[3]:11, Feb. 03, 1992,
  • The Disregard Syndrome: A Menace to Honest Science in The Scientist 15[24]:51, Dec. 10, 2001.
• If he has time he will discuss a recent example of plagiarism in physics, which is the case of
Professor Rajput.
• We may also have some discussion of some of the cases that can be found on the Online Ethics website. If you see something there that you are interested in, bring it along for discussion.

Week of May 5

• Marina Hruska will be talking about Rosalind Franklin and the double helix.
• I am not sure what issues she will want to raise, but two topics that come to my mind are:
• the proper care and use use of results that come into your possession by means other than authorized publication,
• and the question of respectful treatment of your colleagues and collaborators.
• I have not yet found good reading material on these issues, but if you have something to suggest please let me know.
• Read the article Rosalind Franklin and the Double Helix, by L. O. Elkin, Physics Today, March 2003, p. 42 .

Week of April 28

• Think about how your own research group is run and how you would like to see it run.
• Read Chapter 2 of Integrity in Scientific Research: Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct.
• Read General Conditions for NSF Research Grants.

Week of April 21

• This week Gordon Watts and Alejandro Garcia will be leading a discussion about how large research groups work.
• They have not suggested any reading, and our only participant who does work in a large group is off in Sudbury, so I suggest you prepare for the class by chatting to colleagues who do work in such groups.
• Since Wednesday is the UW Day of Reflection I recommend reading the account of an Iraki scientist who would not participate in nuclear weapons development. Hussain Al-Shahristani, from Science 298, 1543 (November 22, 2002).

Week of April 14

• What did we leave out last week that deserves further discussion?
• Carlo will talk about cold fusion, and I will talk about the Schön case.
• Read some of the following things in the reading list, and note what suggestions you have about what is responsible behavior in a research project, both for the participants and for the senior investigators:
• Guidelines for professional conduct, American Physical Society, November 2002. http://www.aps.org/statements/02.2.html
• UW PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES ADDRESSING ALLEGATIONS OF SCIENTIFIC AND SCHOLARLY MISCONDUCT. http://www.washington.edu/faculty/facsenate/handbook/04-09-01.html.
• FEDERAL POLICY ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT. http://www.aps.org/statements/federalpolicy.html
• New York Times, Tuesday, October 15, 2002, pages D1 and D4. Good surveys of the Ninov and Schön cases. This is on the ereserve site. The article about Ninov is called Scientific Fakery, and the article primarily about Schön is called Taken for a Ride.
• Bell Labs fires star physicist found guilty of forging data Science 298, 30-1 (Oct. 4, 2002)
• Lucent Technology's report on the Schön case. http://www.lucent.com/news_events/researchreview.html.
• Retraction of 8 papers in Science by Schön and 8 other authors. Science 298, 961 (Nov. 1, 2002)
• Nature 413, 264 - 265 (20 Sep 2001) News and Views. Comment on Schön, Kloc and Batlogg's claim of 117 K superconductivity in carbon nanotubes.
• Donald Kennedy's view on scientific misconduct and failure of professional responsibility. Science 298, 495 (Oct. 18, 2002). There are some readers' responses to this in Science 298, 1554 (Nov. 22, 2002).
• What other cases of misconduct do you know about?

Week of April 7

• I will introduce a discussion on the responsibilities of authors of scientific papers - authorship, acknowledgements, accuracy, citations, comprehensibility, reproducibility, and so on.
  
• Read some of the following things in the readings list, and see what you think of various suggestions that have been made about the responsibilities of the authors of papers:
• Guidelines for professional conduct , American Physical Society, November 2002. http://www.aps.org/statements/02.2.html
• E. Tarnow. Authorship in Physics. Science and Engineering Ethics 8, 175-190 (2000). This should be on the course ereserve, which I access through https://eres.lib.washington.edu, but you may be meant to access through MyUW
• Donald Kennedy's view on scientific misconduct and failure of professional responsibility. Science 298, 495 (Oct. 18, 2002). There are some readers' responses to this in Science 298, 1554 (Nov. 22, 2002).
• Physics Today, January 2003, pp 21-22
• How many papers a year have L. N. Pfeiffer and K. W. West written recently?  Why so many?
• Look for other readings on the authorship of papers.  I am not happy about the small amount of material I have found.
• Where does the buck stop when there is a serious error in the publication?  
• If you did not get my e-mail and want to be on the list, please let me know at thouless@phys.washington.edu.