|
Biography |
|
Joel J. Nobel, M.D Founder and President Emeritus, ECRI Institute. Joel Nobel founded ECRI, a 42-year old U.S. based nonprofit health services research organization. He developed ECRI's overall policies and programs, including its technology assessment, product evaluation, risk management, and technical assistance services. He created the concepts and operating plans for health devices, health devices alerts, the health devices sourcebook, the healthcare product comparison system, select and many other ECRI publications and services. He developed ECRI's international programs, its related World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Centre and offices in the United Kingdom to serve Europe, in Malaysia to serve the Asia-Pacific region, and in Dubai to serve the Arabic nations. He has personally directed different projects on the five continents. Dr. Nobel has testified before the U.S. Congress on proposed legislation, ranging from national telecommunications policy to medical device regulation, and has served as a consultant to many federal, voluntary, and international agencies, ministries of health and hospitals. Dr. Nobel received his BA degree with high honors from Haverford College, his MA degree in international relations from the University of Pennsylvania and his MD from Thomas Jefferson University Medical College. His neurosurgical residency was interrupted by military service as a medical officer in the U.S. Navy. He also served on a nuclear submarine.
|
|
|
|
Abstract |
|
|
|
|
Research Integrity :Commandment 9, Version 2.0: Thou Shalt Not Present False Data
Joel J. Nobel, MD
Founder & President Emeritus, ECRI Institute
Research in any science focuses on discerning and reporting the undistorted truth. The classical scientific method starts with a hypothesis followed by design and conduct of experiments to demonstrate the validity of that hypothesis. And that is where the trouble begins. Researchers are often, if not usually, heavily invested in validating their own theories. To ask researchers not to care about the results of their experiments is to ask them to deny human nature but that is precisely what we must ask of ourselves. When we care deeply about the results of our experiment we may fail the test of scientific aloofness. Self delusion is common in humans, and not necessarily less so in scientists. Self delusion is a challenge for individual scientists and the scientific community generally., not to mention the routine conduct of our lives.
But scientific misconduct, usually defined as deliberate fabrication, falsification and plagiarism in preparing and submitting papers for publication is absolutely unacceptable. It not only violates the ethical framework and standards of the scientific community, but of society in general. It fractures the trust accorded to scientists by their host society. Beyond scientific and social standards, such behavior defies the ninth of the Ten Commandments .
"Thou shalt not give false testimony"
It also violates the sage advice of our predecessors. And, for physician-clinical researchers, it also breaches Plato's long standing admonition.
" No physician, in so far as he is a physician, considers his own good in what he prescribes, but the good of his patient."((Plato, The Republic, Book I).
Ibn al Haytham, A tenth century scientist who was born in Basra and spent much of his life in Cairo summed it up succinctly by pointing out that “Truth is sought for its own sake….[and] finding the truth is difficult and the road to it is rough.” Ibn Al Haytham, who did pioneering work in optics, may well have been one of earliest individuals to test hypotheses with well conceived and verifiable experiments, elucidating the scientific method more than 200 years before European scholars learned of it—by reading his books
The definitions of research misconduct, as provided by The Office of Research Integrity of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services are straightforward.
1. Fabrication is making up results and recording or reporting them.
2. Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
The research record is defined as the record of data or results that embody the facts resulting from scientific inquiry, and includes, for example, laboratory records, both physical and electronic, research proposals, progress reports, abstracts, theses, oral presentations, internal reports, and journal articles.
3. Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit, including those obtained through confidential review of others' research proposals and manuscripts.
Research misconduct does not include honest error or honest differences of opinion. But outside the obvious evils of fabrication, falsification and plagiarism or honest error and honest differences of opinion there lies that common nasty trap of self-delusion. How can we protect ourselves from ourselves as we go about our scientific work?
|
|
|
|