198 American Entomologist • Winter 2010 F rom early childhood, we are taught right from wrong. As we go through life, becoming accountable for our decisions and actions is a big part of the learning process to understand the norms and standards of conduct. Becoming a scientist mirrors that learning process to understand the norms and standards of conduct in science. Science is generally an open process, and proper conduct is expected of all those involved. Transparent scientific methods, appropriate data collection and analysis, and an honest peer review process are needed for science to advance and build upon previous studies. Furthermore, scientists have a social responsibility for being open and sharing findings through publications and presentations. A high standard of ethics, defined by norms of conduct maintained by scientists, is an essential part of the relationship scientists have with society. The era of “big science” in the United States, which began shortly before World War II, has generated great increases in federal fund- ing for scientific research. In FY 2010, the U.S. government provided more than $150 billion for research and development (AAAS 2010). The goal for investing taxpayer money in mission-oriented research is to improve the lives of all citizens; thus, the use of public funds for scientific research gives the public a stake in the scientific process. Proper and ethical conduct of science is critical to maintaining the public’s financial support and trust of scientists. The public ordinarily holds scientists in high regard and presumes the integrity of science and scientists. When scientific integrity is challenged, the public notices. Several well-publicized cases and al- legations of scientific misconduct over the past decade have placed the topic of scientific ethics squarely in front of the public, academics, and policy-makers (DHHS 2001, 2009; Chang 2002; Harris 2008; Basken 2009; Miller 2010). Irresponsible conduct of research can lead to changes in policy and funding, creating broad and long-lasting ramifications. The fabrication of stem-cell data by a South Korean researcher led to a ban by South Korea on stem cell research using human eggs (Snyder and Loring 2006). Even though the papers were retracted (Kennedy 2006) and the scientist was removed from his position, the damage was done. South Korea lifted the ban on using human eggs for stem cell research in 2009, but the scientific community lost valuable research time and credibility because of the actions of just a few people. Recent charges that climate change scientists in England withheld data gave skeptics ammunition to challenge the integrity of climate change researchers everywhere; however, two subsequent investigations cleared the researchers of “deliberate malpractice” (Adam and Eilperin 2010). Although ethical issues in science have become more complex and politicized, scientific misconduct is not a recent phenomenon. In the 1870s, Louis Pasteur allegedly used ideas from his rivals and misrepresented his research methods. Other types of misconduct include hoaxes, such as the “discovery” of the Piltdown man in 1912. More insidious are experiments conducted in the name of “public good,” such as the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. Each report of misconduct diminishes public trust and weakens scientific integrity. Most scientists maintain high ethical research standards; however, they face challenges during research that can blur the definition of proper conduct. Pressures from regulatory demands and competi- tion among colleagues may lead to less-than-ethical behaviors (De Vries et al. 2006). Fanelli’s study (2009) included a meta-analysis of 18 surveys that exclusively dealt with misconduct in scientific research. These surveys for researchers were analyzed as two parts: research ethics questions about self and colleagues. When asked about self, 2% of the respon- dents agreed to have falsified or fabricated research data; however, 33% reported having either “dropped data points due to gut feelings” or “changed the results due to pressure from funding sources.” Even worse, when surveyed about their colleagues, 14% of the scientists reported having observed falsification or fabrication of data, and 72% of respondents observed questionable scientific practices. Fanelli’s study (2009) focused mainly on the fabrication and falsification of research data, but these behaviors are just two of the types of misconduct. Martinson et al. (2005) found that 38% of mid- career and 28% of early-career scientists surveyed in 2002 reported engaging in one or more of 16 misconduct actions. The scientific process begins with observations that spawn ideas that are tested with experiments and shared with peers and the public in publications; it ultimately leads to the formation of new ideas. Publication allows scientists to share discoveries and to give credit to those who contributed to and invested in the study. Peer- reviewed publication is evidence of scientific credibility, the result of which can be professional advancement, prestige, and subsequent A Perspective on Education in Research Ethics for Entomology Graduate Students A Perspective on Education in Research Ethics for Entomology Graduate Students Rebecca T. Trout, Carey R. Minteer, Godshen R. Pallipparambil, Roxane M. Magnus, and Robert N. Wiedenmann Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ae/article-abstract/56/4/198/2389752 by guest on 12 June 2020