1. write a hypothesis based on observations and scientific principles

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How to Write a Great Hypothesis

Hypothesis Definition, Format, Examples, and Tips

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Amy Morin, LCSW, is a psychotherapist and international bestselling author. Her books, including "13 Things Mentally Strong People Don't Do," have been translated into more than 40 languages. Her TEDx talk,  "The Secret of Becoming Mentally Strong," is one of the most viewed talks of all time.

Verywell / Alex Dos Diaz

• The Scientific Method

Hypothesis Format

Falsifiability of a hypothesis.

• Operationalization

Hypothesis Types

Hypotheses examples.

• Collecting Data

A hypothesis is a tentative statement about the relationship between two or more variables. It is a specific, testable prediction about what you expect to happen in a study. It is a preliminary answer to your question that helps guide the research process.

Consider a study designed to examine the relationship between sleep deprivation and test performance. The hypothesis might be: "This study is designed to assess the hypothesis that sleep-deprived people will perform worse on a test than individuals who are not sleep-deprived."

At a Glance

A hypothesis is crucial to scientific research because it offers a clear direction for what the researchers are looking to find. This allows them to design experiments to test their predictions and add to our scientific knowledge about the world. This article explores how a hypothesis is used in psychology research, how to write a good hypothesis, and the different types of hypotheses you might use.

The Hypothesis in the Scientific Method

In the scientific method , whether it involves research in psychology, biology, or some other area, a hypothesis represents what the researchers think will happen in an experiment. The scientific method involves the following steps:

• Forming a question
• Performing background research
• Creating a hypothesis
• Designing an experiment
• Collecting data
• Analyzing the results
• Drawing conclusions
• Communicating the results

The hypothesis is a prediction, but it involves more than a guess. Most of the time, the hypothesis begins with a question which is then explored through background research. At this point, researchers then begin to develop a testable hypothesis.

Unless you are creating an exploratory study, your hypothesis should always explain what you  expect  to happen.

In a study exploring the effects of a particular drug, the hypothesis might be that researchers expect the drug to have some type of effect on the symptoms of a specific illness. In psychology, the hypothesis might focus on how a certain aspect of the environment might influence a particular behavior.

Remember, a hypothesis does not have to be correct. While the hypothesis predicts what the researchers expect to see, the goal of the research is to determine whether this guess is right or wrong. When conducting an experiment, researchers might explore numerous factors to determine which ones might contribute to the ultimate outcome.

In many cases, researchers may find that the results of an experiment  do not  support the original hypothesis. When writing up these results, the researchers might suggest other options that should be explored in future studies.

In many cases, researchers might draw a hypothesis from a specific theory or build on previous research. For example, prior research has shown that stress can impact the immune system. So a researcher might hypothesize: "People with high-stress levels will be more likely to contract a common cold after being exposed to the virus than people who have low-stress levels."

In other instances, researchers might look at commonly held beliefs or folk wisdom. "Birds of a feather flock together" is one example of folk adage that a psychologist might try to investigate. The researcher might pose a specific hypothesis that "People tend to select romantic partners who are similar to them in interests and educational level."

Elements of a Good Hypothesis

So how do you write a good hypothesis? When trying to come up with a hypothesis for your research or experiments, ask yourself the following questions:

• Is your hypothesis based on your research on a topic?
• Can your hypothesis be tested?
• Does your hypothesis include independent and dependent variables?

Before you come up with a specific hypothesis, spend some time doing background research. Once you have completed a literature review, start thinking about potential questions you still have. Pay attention to the discussion section in the  journal articles you read . Many authors will suggest questions that still need to be explored.

How to Formulate a Good Hypothesis

To form a hypothesis, you should take these steps:

• Collect as many observations about a topic or problem as you can.
• Evaluate these observations and look for possible causes of the problem.
• Create a list of possible explanations that you might want to explore.
• After you have developed some possible hypotheses, think of ways that you could confirm or disprove each hypothesis through experimentation. This is known as falsifiability.

In the scientific method ,  falsifiability is an important part of any valid hypothesis. In order to test a claim scientifically, it must be possible that the claim could be proven false.

Students sometimes confuse the idea of falsifiability with the idea that it means that something is false, which is not the case. What falsifiability means is that  if  something was false, then it is possible to demonstrate that it is false.

One of the hallmarks of pseudoscience is that it makes claims that cannot be refuted or proven false.

The Importance of Operational Definitions

A variable is a factor or element that can be changed and manipulated in ways that are observable and measurable. However, the researcher must also define how the variable will be manipulated and measured in the study.

Operational definitions are specific definitions for all relevant factors in a study. This process helps make vague or ambiguous concepts detailed and measurable.

For example, a researcher might operationally define the variable " test anxiety " as the results of a self-report measure of anxiety experienced during an exam. A "study habits" variable might be defined by the amount of studying that actually occurs as measured by time.

These precise descriptions are important because many things can be measured in various ways. Clearly defining these variables and how they are measured helps ensure that other researchers can replicate your results.

Replicability

One of the basic principles of any type of scientific research is that the results must be replicable.

Replication means repeating an experiment in the same way to produce the same results. By clearly detailing the specifics of how the variables were measured and manipulated, other researchers can better understand the results and repeat the study if needed.

Some variables are more difficult than others to define. For example, how would you operationally define a variable such as aggression ? For obvious ethical reasons, researchers cannot create a situation in which a person behaves aggressively toward others.

To measure this variable, the researcher must devise a measurement that assesses aggressive behavior without harming others. The researcher might utilize a simulated task to measure aggressiveness in this situation.

Hypothesis Checklist

• Does your hypothesis focus on something that you can actually test?
• Does your hypothesis include both an independent and dependent variable?
• Can you manipulate the variables?
• Can your hypothesis be tested without violating ethical standards?

The hypothesis you use will depend on what you are investigating and hoping to find. Some of the main types of hypotheses that you might use include:

• Simple hypothesis : This type of hypothesis suggests there is a relationship between one independent variable and one dependent variable.
• Complex hypothesis : This type suggests a relationship between three or more variables, such as two independent and dependent variables.
• Null hypothesis : This hypothesis suggests no relationship exists between two or more variables.
• Alternative hypothesis : This hypothesis states the opposite of the null hypothesis.
• Statistical hypothesis : This hypothesis uses statistical analysis to evaluate a representative population sample and then generalizes the findings to the larger group.
• Logical hypothesis : This hypothesis assumes a relationship between variables without collecting data or evidence.

A hypothesis often follows a basic format of "If {this happens} then {this will happen}." One way to structure your hypothesis is to describe what will happen to the  dependent variable  if you change the  independent variable .

The basic format might be: "If {these changes are made to a certain independent variable}, then we will observe {a change in a specific dependent variable}."

A few examples of simple hypotheses:

• "Students who eat breakfast will perform better on a math exam than students who do not eat breakfast."
• "Students who experience test anxiety before an English exam will get lower scores than students who do not experience test anxiety."​
• "Motorists who talk on the phone while driving will be more likely to make errors on a driving course than those who do not talk on the phone."
• "Children who receive a new reading intervention will have higher reading scores than students who do not receive the intervention."

Examples of a complex hypothesis include:

• "People with high-sugar diets and sedentary activity levels are more likely to develop depression."
• "Younger people who are regularly exposed to green, outdoor areas have better subjective well-being than older adults who have limited exposure to green spaces."

Examples of a null hypothesis include:

• "There is no difference in anxiety levels between people who take St. John's wort supplements and those who do not."
• "There is no difference in scores on a memory recall task between children and adults."
• "There is no difference in aggression levels between children who play first-person shooter games and those who do not."

Examples of an alternative hypothesis:

• "People who take St. John's wort supplements will have less anxiety than those who do not."
• "Adults will perform better on a memory task than children."
• "Children who play first-person shooter games will show higher levels of aggression than children who do not." 

Collecting Data on Your Hypothesis

Once a researcher has formed a testable hypothesis, the next step is to select a research design and start collecting data. The research method depends largely on exactly what they are studying. There are two basic types of research methods: descriptive research and experimental research.

Descriptive Research Methods

Descriptive research such as  case studies ,  naturalistic observations , and surveys are often used when  conducting an experiment is difficult or impossible. These methods are best used to describe different aspects of a behavior or psychological phenomenon.

Once a researcher has collected data using descriptive methods, a  correlational study  can examine how the variables are related. This research method might be used to investigate a hypothesis that is difficult to test experimentally.

Experimental Research Methods

Experimental methods  are used to demonstrate causal relationships between variables. In an experiment, the researcher systematically manipulates a variable of interest (known as the independent variable) and measures the effect on another variable (known as the dependent variable).

Unlike correlational studies, which can only be used to determine if there is a relationship between two variables, experimental methods can be used to determine the actual nature of the relationship—whether changes in one variable actually  cause  another to change.

The hypothesis is a critical part of any scientific exploration. It represents what researchers expect to find in a study or experiment. In situations where the hypothesis is unsupported by the research, the research still has value. Such research helps us better understand how different aspects of the natural world relate to one another. It also helps us develop new hypotheses that can then be tested in the future.

Thompson WH, Skau S. On the scope of scientific hypotheses .  R Soc Open Sci . 2023;10(8):230607. doi:10.1098/rsos.230607

Taran S, Adhikari NKJ, Fan E. Falsifiability in medicine: what clinicians can learn from Karl Popper [published correction appears in Intensive Care Med. 2021 Jun 17;:].  Intensive Care Med . 2021;47(9):1054-1056. doi:10.1007/s00134-021-06432-z

Eyler AA. Research Methods for Public Health . 1st ed. Springer Publishing Company; 2020. doi:10.1891/9780826182067.0004

Nosek BA, Errington TM. What is replication ?  PLoS Biol . 2020;18(3):e3000691. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000691

Aggarwal R, Ranganathan P. Study designs: Part 2 - Descriptive studies .  Perspect Clin Res . 2019;10(1):34-36. doi:10.4103/picr.PICR_154_18

Nevid J. Psychology: Concepts and Applications. Wadworth, 2013.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

1.3: The Scientific Method

Chapter 1: scientific inquiry, chapter 2: chemistry of life, chapter 3: macromolecules, chapter 4: cell structure and function, chapter 5: membranes and cellular transport, chapter 6: cell signaling, chapter 7: metabolism, chapter 8: cellular respiration, chapter 9: photosynthesis, chapter 10: cell cycle and division, chapter 11: meiosis, chapter 12: classical and modern genetics, chapter 13: dna structure and function, chapter 14: gene expression, chapter 15: biotechnology, chapter 16: viruses, chapter 17: nutrition and digestion, chapter 18: nervous system, chapter 19: sensory systems, chapter 20: musculoskeletal system, chapter 21: endocrine system, chapter 22: circulatory and pulmonary systems, chapter 23: osmoregulation and excretion, chapter 24: immune system, chapter 25: reproduction and development, chapter 26: behavior, chapter 27: ecosystems, chapter 28: population and community ecology, chapter 29: biodiversity and conservation, chapter 30: speciation and diversity, chapter 31: natural selection, chapter 32: population genetics, chapter 33: evolutionary history, chapter 34: plant structure, growth, and nutrition, chapter 35: plant reproduction, chapter 36: plant responses to the environment.

The JoVE video player is compatible with HTML5 and Adobe Flash. Older browsers that do not support HTML5 and the H.264 video codec will still use a Flash-based video player. We recommend downloading the newest version of Flash here, but we support all versions 10 and above.

The scientific method is a detailed, stepwise process for answering questions. For example, a scientist makes an observation that the slugs destroy some cabbages but not those near garlic.

Such observations lead to asking questions, "Could garlic be used to deter slugs from ruining a cabbage patch?" After formulating questions, the scientist can then develop hypotheses —potential explanations for the observations that lead to specific, testable predictions.

In this case, a hypothesis could be that garlic repels slugs, which predicts that cabbages surrounded by garlic powder will suffer less damage than the ones without it. 

The hypothesis is then tested through a series of experiments designed to eliminate hypotheses.

The experimental setup involves defining variables. An independent variable is an item that is being tested, in this case, garlic addition. The dependent variable describes the measurement used to determine the outcome, such as the number of slugs on the cabbages.

In addition, the slugs must be divided into groups, experimental and control. These groups are identical, except that the experimental group is exposed to garlic powder.

After data are collected and analyzed, conclusions are made, and results are communicated to other scientists.

The scientific method is a detailed, empirical problem-solving process used by biologists and other scientists. This iterative approach involves formulating a question based on observation, developing a testable potential explanation for the observation (called a hypothesis), making and testing predictions based on the hypothesis, and using the findings to create new hypotheses and predictions.

Generally, predictions are tested using carefully-designed experiments. Based on the outcome of these experiments, the original hypothesis may need to be refined, and new hypotheses and questions can be generated. Importantly, this illustrates that the scientific method is not a stepwise recipe. Instead, it is a continuous refinement and testing of ideas based on new observations, which is the crux of scientific inquiry.

Science is mutable and continuously changes as scientists learn more about the world, physical phenomena and how organisms interact with their environment. For this reason, scientists avoid claiming to ‘prove' a specific idea. Instead, they gather evidence that either supports or refutes a given hypothesis.

Making Observations and Formulating Hypotheses

A hypothesis is preceded by an initial observation, during which information is gathered by the senses (e.g., vision, hearing) or using scientific tools and instruments. This observation leads to a question that prompts the formation of an initial hypothesis, a (testable) possible answer to the question. For example, the observation that slugs eat some cabbage plants but not cabbage plants located near garlic may prompt the question: why do slugs selectively not eat cabbage plants near garlic? One possible hypothesis, or answer to this question, is that slugs have an aversion to garlic. Based on this hypothesis, one might predict that slugs will not eat cabbage plants surrounded by a ring of garlic powder.

A hypothesis should be falsifiable, meaning that there are ways to disprove it if it is untrue. In other words, a hypothesis should be testable. Scientists often articulate and explicitly test for the opposite of the hypothesis, which is called the null hypothesis. In this case, the null hypothesis is that slugs do not have an aversion to garlic. The null hypothesis would be supported if, contrary to the prediction, slugs eat cabbage plants that are surrounded by garlic powder.

Testing a Hypothesis

When possible, scientists test hypotheses using controlled experiments that include independent and dependent variables, as well as control and experimental groups.

An independent variable is an item expected to have an effect (e.g., the garlic powder used in the slug and cabbage experiment or treatment given in a clinical trial). Dependent variables are the measurements used to determine the outcome of an experiment. In the experiment with slugs, cabbages, and garlic, the number of slugs eating cabbages is the dependent variable. This number is expected to depend on the presence or absence of garlic powder rings around the cabbage plants.

Experiments require experimental and control groups. An experimental group is treated with or exposed to the independent variable (i.e., the manipulation or treatment). For example, in the garlic aversion experiment with slugs, the experimental group is a group of cabbage plants surrounded by a garlic powder ring. A control group is subject to the same conditions as the experimental group, with the exception of the independent variable. Control groups in this experiment might include a group of cabbage plants in the same area that is surrounded by a non-garlic powder ring (to control for powder aversion) and a group that is not surrounded by any particular substance (to control for cabbage aversion). It is essential to include a control group because, without one, it is unclear whether the outcome is the result of the treatment or manipulation.

Refining a Hypothesis

If the results of an experiment support the hypothesis, further experiments may be designed and carried out to provide support for the hypothesis. The hypothesis may also be refined and made more specific. For example, additional experiments could determine whether slugs also have an aversion to other plants of the Allium genus, like onions.

If the results do not support the hypothesis, then the original hypothesis may be modified based on the new observations. It is important to rule out potential problems with the experimental design before modifying the hypothesis. For example, if slugs demonstrate an aversion to both garlic and non-garlic powder, the experiment can be carried out again using fresh garlic instead of powdered garlic. If the slugs still exhibit no aversion to garlic, then the original hypothesis can be modified.

Communication

The results of the experiments should be communicated to other scientists and the public, regardless of whether the data support the original hypothesis. This information can guide the development of new hypotheses and experimental questions.

Get cutting-edge science videos from J o VE sent straight to your inbox every month.

mktb-description

We use cookies to enhance your experience on our website.

By continuing to use our website or clicking “Continue”, you are agreeing to accept our cookies.

Module 1: Introduction to Biology

Experiments and hypotheses, learning outcomes.

• Form a hypothesis and use it to design a scientific experiment

Now we’ll focus on the methods of scientific inquiry. Science often involves making observations and developing hypotheses. Experiments and further observations are often used to test the hypotheses.

A scientific experiment is a carefully organized procedure in which the scientist intervenes in a system to change something, then observes the result of the change. Scientific inquiry often involves doing experiments, though not always. For example, a scientist studying the mating behaviors of ladybugs might begin with detailed observations of ladybugs mating in their natural habitats. While this research may not be experimental, it is scientific: it involves careful and verifiable observation of the natural world. The same scientist might then treat some of the ladybugs with a hormone hypothesized to trigger mating and observe whether these ladybugs mated sooner or more often than untreated ones. This would qualify as an experiment because the scientist is now making a change in the system and observing the effects.

Forming a Hypothesis

When conducting scientific experiments, researchers develop hypotheses to guide experimental design. A hypothesis is a suggested explanation that is both testable and falsifiable. You must be able to test your hypothesis, and it must be possible to prove your hypothesis true or false.

For example, Michael observes that maple trees lose their leaves in the fall. He might then propose a possible explanation for this observation: “cold weather causes maple trees to lose their leaves in the fall.” This statement is testable. He could grow maple trees in a warm enclosed environment such as a greenhouse and see if their leaves still dropped in the fall. The hypothesis is also falsifiable. If the leaves still dropped in the warm environment, then clearly temperature was not the main factor in causing maple leaves to drop in autumn.

In the Try It below, you can practice recognizing scientific hypotheses. As you consider each statement, try to think as a scientist would: can I test this hypothesis with observations or experiments? Is the statement falsifiable? If the answer to either of these questions is “no,” the statement is not a valid scientific hypothesis.

Practice Questions

Determine whether each following statement is a scientific hypothesis.

Air pollution from automobile exhaust can trigger symptoms in people with asthma.

• No. This statement is not testable or falsifiable.
• No. This statement is not testable.
• No. This statement is not falsifiable.
• Yes. This statement is testable and falsifiable.

Natural disasters, such as tornadoes, are punishments for bad thoughts and behaviors.

a: No. This statement is not testable or falsifiable. “Bad thoughts and behaviors” are excessively vague and subjective variables that would be impossible to measure or agree upon in a reliable way. The statement might be “falsifiable” if you came up with a counterexample: a “wicked” place that was not punished by a natural disaster. But some would question whether the people in that place were really wicked, and others would continue to predict that a natural disaster was bound to strike that place at some point. There is no reason to suspect that people’s immoral behavior affects the weather unless you bring up the intervention of a supernatural being, making this idea even harder to test.

Testing a Vaccine

Let’s examine the scientific process by discussing an actual scientific experiment conducted by researchers at the University of Washington. These researchers investigated whether a vaccine may reduce the incidence of the human papillomavirus (HPV). The experimental process and results were published in an article titled, “ A controlled trial of a human papillomavirus type 16 vaccine .”

Preliminary observations made by the researchers who conducted the HPV experiment are listed below:

• Human papillomavirus (HPV) is the most common sexually transmitted virus in the United States.
• There are about 40 different types of HPV. A significant number of people that have HPV are unaware of it because many of these viruses cause no symptoms.
• Some types of HPV can cause cervical cancer.
• About 4,000 women a year die of cervical cancer in the United States.

Practice Question

Researchers have developed a potential vaccine against HPV and want to test it. What is the first testable hypothesis that the researchers should study?

• HPV causes cervical cancer.
• People should not have unprotected sex with many partners.
• People who get the vaccine will not get HPV.
• The HPV vaccine will protect people against cancer.

Experimental Design

You’ve successfully identified a hypothesis for the University of Washington’s study on HPV: People who get the HPV vaccine will not get HPV.

The next step is to design an experiment that will test this hypothesis. There are several important factors to consider when designing a scientific experiment. First, scientific experiments must have an experimental group. This is the group that receives the experimental treatment necessary to address the hypothesis.

The experimental group receives the vaccine, but how can we know if the vaccine made a difference? Many things may change HPV infection rates in a group of people over time. To clearly show that the vaccine was effective in helping the experimental group, we need to include in our study an otherwise similar control group that does not get the treatment. We can then compare the two groups and determine if the vaccine made a difference. The control group shows us what happens in the absence of the factor under study.

However, the control group cannot get “nothing.” Instead, the control group often receives a placebo. A placebo is a procedure that has no expected therapeutic effect—such as giving a person a sugar pill or a shot containing only plain saline solution with no drug. Scientific studies have shown that the “placebo effect” can alter experimental results because when individuals are told that they are or are not being treated, this knowledge can alter their actions or their emotions, which can then alter the results of the experiment.

Moreover, if the doctor knows which group a patient is in, this can also influence the results of the experiment. Without saying so directly, the doctor may show—through body language or other subtle cues—their views about whether the patient is likely to get well. These errors can then alter the patient’s experience and change the results of the experiment. Therefore, many clinical studies are “double blind.” In these studies, neither the doctor nor the patient knows which group the patient is in until all experimental results have been collected.

Both placebo treatments and double-blind procedures are designed to prevent bias. Bias is any systematic error that makes a particular experimental outcome more or less likely. Errors can happen in any experiment: people make mistakes in measurement, instruments fail, computer glitches can alter data. But most such errors are random and don’t favor one outcome over another. Patients’ belief in a treatment can make it more likely to appear to “work.” Placebos and double-blind procedures are used to level the playing field so that both groups of study subjects are treated equally and share similar beliefs about their treatment.

The scientists who are researching the effectiveness of the HPV vaccine will test their hypothesis by separating 2,392 young women into two groups: the control group and the experimental group. Answer the following questions about these two groups.

• This group is given a placebo.
• This group is deliberately infected with HPV.
• This group is given nothing.
• This group is given the HPV vaccine.
• a: This group is given a placebo. A placebo will be a shot, just like the HPV vaccine, but it will have no active ingredient. It may change peoples’ thinking or behavior to have such a shot given to them, but it will not stimulate the immune systems of the subjects in the same way as predicted for the vaccine itself.
• d: This group is given the HPV vaccine. The experimental group will receive the HPV vaccine and researchers will then be able to see if it works, when compared to the control group.

Experimental Variables

A variable is a characteristic of a subject (in this case, of a person in the study) that can vary over time or among individuals. Sometimes a variable takes the form of a category, such as male or female; often a variable can be measured precisely, such as body height. Ideally, only one variable is different between the control group and the experimental group in a scientific experiment. Otherwise, the researchers will not be able to determine which variable caused any differences seen in the results. For example, imagine that the people in the control group were, on average, much more sexually active than the people in the experimental group. If, at the end of the experiment, the control group had a higher rate of HPV infection, could you confidently determine why? Maybe the experimental subjects were protected by the vaccine, but maybe they were protected by their low level of sexual contact.

To avoid this situation, experimenters make sure that their subject groups are as similar as possible in all variables except for the variable that is being tested in the experiment. This variable, or factor, will be deliberately changed in the experimental group. The one variable that is different between the two groups is called the independent variable. An independent variable is known or hypothesized to cause some outcome. Imagine an educational researcher investigating the effectiveness of a new teaching strategy in a classroom. The experimental group receives the new teaching strategy, while the control group receives the traditional strategy. It is the teaching strategy that is the independent variable in this scenario. In an experiment, the independent variable is the variable that the scientist deliberately changes or imposes on the subjects.

Dependent variables are known or hypothesized consequences; they are the effects that result from changes or differences in an independent variable. In an experiment, the dependent variables are those that the scientist measures before, during, and particularly at the end of the experiment to see if they have changed as expected. The dependent variable must be stated so that it is clear how it will be observed or measured. Rather than comparing “learning” among students (which is a vague and difficult to measure concept), an educational researcher might choose to compare test scores, which are very specific and easy to measure.

In any real-world example, many, many variables MIGHT affect the outcome of an experiment, yet only one or a few independent variables can be tested. Other variables must be kept as similar as possible between the study groups and are called control variables . For our educational research example, if the control group consisted only of people between the ages of 18 and 20 and the experimental group contained people between the ages of 30 and 35, we would not know if it was the teaching strategy or the students’ ages that played a larger role in the results. To avoid this problem, a good study will be set up so that each group contains students with a similar age profile. In a well-designed educational research study, student age will be a controlled variable, along with other possibly important factors like gender, past educational achievement, and pre-existing knowledge of the subject area.

What is the independent variable in this experiment?

• Sex (all of the subjects will be female)
• Presence or absence of the HPV vaccine
• Presence or absence of HPV (the virus)

List three control variables other than age.

What is the dependent variable in this experiment?

• Sex (male or female)
• Rates of HPV infection
• Age (years)
• Revision and adaptation. Authored by : Shelli Carter and Lumen Learning. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• Scientific Inquiry. Provided by : Open Learning Initiative. Located at : https://oli.cmu.edu/jcourse/workbook/activity/page?context=434a5c2680020ca6017c03488572e0f8 . Project : Introduction to Biology (Open + Free). License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

Mechanics (Essentials) - Class 11th

Course: mechanics (essentials) - class 11th   >   unit 2.

• Introduction to physics
• What is physics?

The scientific method

• Models and Approximations in Physics

Introduction

• Make an observation.
• Ask a question.
• Form a hypothesis , or testable explanation.
• Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
• Test the prediction.
• Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

Scientific method example: Failure to toast

1. make an observation., 2. ask a question., 3. propose a hypothesis., 4. make predictions., 5. test the predictions..

• If the toaster does toast, then the hypothesis is supported—likely correct.
• If the toaster doesn't toast, then the hypothesis is not supported—likely wrong.

Logical possibility

Practical possibility, building a body of evidence, 6. iterate..

• If the hypothesis was supported, we might do additional tests to confirm it, or revise it to be more specific. For instance, we might investigate why the outlet is broken.
• If the hypothesis was not supported, we would come up with a new hypothesis. For instance, the next hypothesis might be that there's a broken wire in the toaster.

Want to join the conversation?

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

3.5: Developing A Hypothesis

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 75017

• University of Missouri–St. Louis

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

Theories and Hypotheses

Before describing how to develop a hypothesis, it is important to distinguish between a theory and a hypothesis. A theory is a coherent explanation or interpretation of one or more phenomena. Although theories can take a variety of forms, one thing they have in common is that they go beyond the phenomena they explain by including variables, structures, processes, functions, or organizing principles that have not been observed directly. Consider, for example, Zajonc’s theory of social facilitation and social inhibition (1965). He pro- posed that being watched by others while performing a task creates a general state of physiological arousal, which increases the likelihood of the dominant (most likely) response. So for highly practiced tasks, being watched increases the tendency to make correct responses, but for relatively unpracticed tasks, being watched increases the tendency to make incorrect responses. Notice that this theory—which has come to be called drive theory—provides an explanation of both social facilitation and social inhibition that goes beyond the phenomena themselves by including concepts such as “arousal” and “dominant response,” along with processes such as the effect of arousal on the dominant response.

Outside of science, referring to an idea as a theory often implies that it is untested—perhaps no more than a wild guess. In science, however, the term theory has no such implication. A theory is simply an explanation or interpretation of a set of phenomena. It can be untested, but it can also be extensively tested, well supported, and accepted as an accurate description of the world by the scientific community. The theory of evolution by natural selection, for example, is a theory because it is an explanation of the diversity of life on earth—not because it is untested or unsupported by scientific research. On the contrary, the evidence for this theory is overwhelmingly positive and nearly all scientists accept its basic assumptions as accurate. Similarly, the “germ theory” of disease is a theory because it is an explanation of the origin of various diseases, not because there is any doubt that many diseases are caused by microorganisms that infect the body.

A hypothesis , on the other hand, is a specific prediction about a new phenomenon that should be observed if a particular theory is accurate. It is an explanation that relies on just a few key concepts. Hypotheses are often specific predictions about what will happen in a particular study. They are developed by considering existing evidence and using reasoning to infer what will happen in the specific context of interest. Hypotheses are often but not always derived from theories. So a hypothesis is often a prediction based on a theory but some hypotheses are atheoretical and only after a set of observations has been made is a theory developed. This is because theories are broad in nature and explain larger bodies of data. So if our research question is really original then we may need to collect some data and make some observations before we can develop a broader theory.

Theories and hypotheses always have this if-then relation- ship. “ If drive theory is correct, then cockroaches should run through a straight runway faster and through a branching runway more slowly when other cockroaches are present.” Although hypotheses are usually expressed as statements, they can always be rephrased as questions. “Do cockroaches run through a straight runway faster when other cockroaches are present?” Thus, deriving hypotheses from theories is an excellent way of generating interesting research questions.

But how do researchers derive hypotheses from theories? One way is to generate a research question using the techniques discussed in this chapter and then ask whether any theory implies an answer to that question. For example, you might wonder whether expressive writing about positive experiences improves health as much as expressive writing about traumatic experiences. Although this question is an interesting one on its own, you might then ask whether the habituation theory—the idea that expressive writing causes people to habituate to negative thoughts and feel- ings—implies an answer. In this case, it seems clear that if the habituation theory is correct, then expressive writing about positive experiences should not be effective because it would not cause people to habituate to negative thoughts and feelings. A second way to derive hypotheses from theories is to focus on some component of the theory that has not yet been directly observed. For example, a researcher could focus on the process of habituation—perhaps hypothesizing that people should show fewer signs of emotional distress with each new writing session.

Among the very best hypotheses are those that distinguish between competing theories. For example, Norbert Schwarz and his colleagues considered two theories of how people make judgments about themselves, such as how assertive they are (Schwarz et al., 1991). Both theories held that such judgments are based on relevant examples that people bring to mind. However, one theory was that people base their judgments on the number of examples they bring to mind and the other was that people base their judgments on how easily they bring those examples to mind. To test these theories, the researchers asked people to recall either six times when they were assertive (which is easy for most people) or 12 times (which is difficult for most people). Then they asked them to judge their own assertiveness. Note that the number-of-examples theory implies that people who recalled 12 examples should judge themselves to be more assertive because they recalled more examples, but the ease-of-examples theory implies that participants who recalled six examples should judge themselves as more assertive because recalling the examples was easier. Thus the two theories made opposite predictions so that only one of the predictions could be confirmed. The surprising result was that participants who recalled fewer examples judged them- selves to be more assertive—providing particularly convincing evidence in favor of the ease-of-retrieval theory over the number-of-examples theory.

Theory Testing

The primary way that scientific researchers use theories is some- times called the hypothetico-deductive method (although this term is much more likely to be used by philosophers of science than by scientists themselves). Researchers begin with a set of phenomena and either construct a theory to explain or interpret the phenomena or choose an existing theory to work with. They then make a prediction about some new phenomenon that should be observed if the theory is correct. Again, this pre- diction is called a hypothesis. The researchers then conduct an empirical study to test the hypothesis. Finally, they reevaluate the theory in light of the new results and revise it if necessary. This process is usually conceptualized as a cycle because the researchers can then derive a new hypothesis from the revised theory, conduct a new empirical study to test the hypothesis, and so on. As Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\) shows, this approach meshes nicely with the model of scientific research in psychology presented earlier in the textbook—creating a more detailed model of “theoretically motivated” or “theory-driven” research.

As an example, let us consider Zajonc’s research on social facilitation and inhibition. He started with a somewhat contradictory pattern of results from the research literature. He then constructed his drive theory, according to which being watched by others while performing a task causes physiological arousal, which increases an organism’s tendency to make the dominant response. This theory predicts social facilitation for well-learned tasks and social inhibition for poorly learned tasks. He now had a theory that organized previous results in a meaningful way—but he still needed to test it. He hypothesized that if his theory was correct, he should observe that the presence of others improves performance in a simple laboratory task but inhibits performance in a difficult version of the very same laboratory task. To test this hypothesis, one of the studies he conducted used cockroaches as subjects (Zajonc, Heingartner, & Herman, 1969). The cockroaches ran either down a straight runway (an easy task for a cockroach) or through a cross-shaped maze (a difficult task for a cock- roach) to escape into a dark chamber when a light was shined on them. They did this either while alone or in the presence of other cockroaches in clear plastic “audience boxes.” Zajonc found that cockroaches in the straight runway reached their goal more quickly in the presence of other cockroaches, but cockroaches in the cross-shaped maze reached their goal more slowly when they were in the presence of other cock- roaches. Thus he confirmed his hypothesis and provided support for his drive theory. (Zajonc also showed that drive theory existed in humans [Zajonc & Sales, 1966] in many other studies afterward).

Incorporating Theory into Your Research

When you write your research report or plan your presentation, be aware that there are two basic ways that researchers usually include theory. The first is to raise a research question, answer that question by conducting a new study, and then offer one or more theories (usually more) to explain or interpret the results. This format works well for applied research questions and for research questions that existing theories do not address. The second way is to describe one or more existing theories, derive a hypothesis from one of those theories, test the hypothesis in a new study, and finally reevaluate the theory. This format works well when there is an existing theory that addresses the research question—especially if the resulting hypothesis is surprising or conflicts with a hypothesis derived from a different theory.

To use theories in your research will not only give you guidance in coming up with experiment ideas and possible projects, but it lends legitimacy to your work. Psychologists have been interested in a variety of human behaviors and have developed many theories along the way. Using established theories will help you break new ground as a researcher, not limit you from developing your own ideas.

Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis

There are three general characteristics of a good hypothesis. First, a good hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable . We must be able to test the hypothesis using the methods of science, and it must be possible to gather evidence that will disconfirm the hypothesis if it is indeed false. Second, a good hypothesis must be logical . As described above, hypotheses are more than just a random guess. Hypotheses should be informed by previous theories or observations and logical reasoning. Typically, we begin with a broad and general theory and use deductive reasoning to generate a more specific hypothesis to test based on that theory. Occasionally, how- ever, when there is no theory to inform our hypothesis, we use inductive reasoning which involves using specific observations or research findings to form a more general hypothesis. Finally, the hypothesis should be positive . That is, the hypothesis should make a positive statement about the existence of a relationship or effect, rather than a statement that a relationship or effect does not exist. As scientists, we don’t set out to show that relationships do not exist or that effects do not occur so our hypotheses should not be worded in a way to suggest that an effect or relationship does not exist. The nature of science is to assume that something does not exist and then seek to find evidence to prove this wrong, to show that it really does exist. That may seem backward to you but that is the nature of the scientific method. The underlying reason for this is beyond the scope of this chapter but it has to do with statistical theory.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

National Academy of Sciences (US), National Academy of Engineering (US) and Institute of Medicine (US) Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research. Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process: Volume I. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1992.

Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process: Volume I.

• Hardcopy Version at National Academies Press

2 Scientific Principles and Research Practices

Until the past decade, scientists, research institutions, and government agencies relied solely on a system of self-regulation based on shared ethical principles and generally accepted research practices to ensure integrity in the research process. Among the very basic principles that guide scientists, as well as many other scholars, are those expressed as respect for the integrity of knowledge, collegiality, honesty, objectivity, and openness. These principles are at work in the fundamental elements of the scientific method, such as formulating a hypothesis, designing an experiment to test the hypothesis, and collecting and interpreting data. In addition, more particular principles characteristic of specific scientific disciplines influence the methods of observation; the acquisition, storage, management, and sharing of data; the communication of scientific knowledge and information; and the training of younger scientists. 1 How these principles are applied varies considerably among the several scientific disciplines, different research organizations, and individual investigators.

The basic and particular principles that guide scientific research practices exist primarily in an unwritten code of ethics. Although some have proposed that these principles should be written down and formalized, 2 the principles and traditions of science are, for the most part, conveyed to successive generations of scientists through example, discussion, and informal education. As was pointed out in an early Academy report on responsible conduct of research in the health sciences, “a variety of informal and formal practices and procedures currently exist in the academic research environment to assure and maintain the high quality of research conduct” (IOM, 1989a, p. 18).

Physicist Richard Feynman invoked the informal approach to communicating the basic principles of science in his 1974 commencement address at the California Institute of Technology (Feynman, 1985):

[There is an] idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school—we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. . . . It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it; other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can—if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong—to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. In summary, the idea is to try to give all the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution, not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another. (pp. 311-312)

Many scholars have noted the implicit nature and informal character of the processes that often guide scientific research practices and inference. 3 Research in well-established fields of scientific knowledge, guided by commonly accepted theoretical paradigms and experimental methods, involves few disagreements about what is recognized as sound scientific evidence. Even in a revolutionary scientific field like molecular biology, students and trainees have learned the basic principles governing judgments made in such standardized procedures as cloning a new gene and determining its sequence.

In evaluating practices that guide research endeavors, it is important to consider the individual character of scientific fields. Research fields that yield highly replicable results, such as ordinary organic chemical structures, are quite different from fields such as cellular immunology, which are in a much earlier stage of development and accumulate much erroneous or uninterpretable material before the pieces fit together coherently. When a research field is too new or too fragmented to support consensual paradigms or established methods, different scientific practices can emerge.

THE NATURE OF SCIENCE

In broadest terms, scientists seek a systematic organization of knowledge about the universe and its parts. This knowledge is based on explanatory principles whose verifiable consequences can be tested by independent observers. Science encompasses a large body of evidence collected by repeated observations and experiments. Although its goal is to approach true explanations as closely as possible, its investigators claim no final or permanent explanatory truths. Science changes. It evolves. Verifiable facts always take precedence. . . .

Scientists operate within a system designed for continuous testing, where corrections and new findings are announced in refereed scientific publications. The task of systematizing and extending the understanding of the universe is advanced by eliminating disproved ideas and by formulating new tests of others until one emerges as the most probable explanation for any given observed phenomenon. This is called the scientific method.

An idea that has not yet been sufficiently tested is called a hypothesis. Different hypotheses are sometimes advanced to explain the same factual evidence. Rigor in the testing of hypotheses is the heart of science, if no verifiable tests can be formulated, the idea is called an ad hoc hypothesis—one that is not fruitful; such hypotheses fail to stimulate research and are unlikely to advance scientific knowledge.

A fruitful hypothesis may develop into a theory after substantial observational or experimental support has accumulated. When a hypothesis has survived repeated opportunities for disproof and when competing hypotheses have been eliminated as a result of failure to produce the predicted consequences, that hypothesis may become the accepted theory explaining the original facts.

Scientific theories are also predictive. They allow us to anticipate yet unknown phenomena and thus to focus research on more narrowly defined areas. If the results of testing agree with predictions from a theory, the theory is provisionally corroborated. If not, it is proved false and must be either abandoned or modified to account for the inconsistency.

Scientific theories, therefore, are accepted only provisionally. It is always possible that a theory that has withstood previous testing may eventually be disproved. But as theories survive more tests, they are regarded with higher levels of confidence. . . .

In science, then, facts are determined by observation or measurement of natural or experimental phenomena. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation of those facts. A theory is a hypothesis that has gained wide acceptance because it has survived rigorous investigation of its predictions. . . .

. . . science accommodates, indeed welcomes, new discoveries: its theories change and its activities broaden as new facts come to light or new potentials are recognized. Examples of events changing scientific thought are legion. . . . Truly scientific understanding cannot be attained or even pursued effectively when explanations not derived from or tested by the scientific method are accepted.

SOURCE: National Academy of Sciences and National Research Council (1984), pp. 8-11.

A well-established discipline can also experience profound changes during periods of new conceptual insights. In these moments, when scientists must cope with shifting concepts, the matter of what counts as scientific evidence can be subject to dispute. Historian Jan Sapp has described the complex interplay between theory and observation that characterizes the operation of scientific judgment in the selection of research data during revolutionary periods of paradigmatic shift (Sapp, 1990, p. 113):

What “liberties” scientists are allowed in selecting positive data and omitting conflicting or “messy” data from their reports is not defined by any timeless method. It is a matter of negotiation. It is learned, acquired socially; scientists make judgments about what fellow scientists might expect in order to be convincing. What counts as good evidence may be more or less well-defined after a new discipline or specialty is formed; however, at revolutionary stages in science, when new theories and techniques are being put forward, when standards have yet to be negotiated, scientists are less certain as to what others may require of them to be deemed competent and convincing.

Explicit statements of the values and traditions that guide research practice have evolved through the disciplines and have been given in textbooks on scientific methodologies. 4 In the past few decades, many scientific and engineering societies representing individual disciplines have also adopted codes of ethics (see Volume II of this report for examples), 5 and more recently, a few research institutions have developed guidelines for the conduct of research (see Chapter 6 ).

But the responsibilities of the research community and research institutions in assuring individual compliance with scientific principles, traditions, and codes of ethics are not well defined. In recent years, the absence of formal statements by research institutions of the principles that should guide research conducted by their members has prompted criticism that scientists and their institutions lack a clearly identifiable means to ensure the integrity of the research process.

• FACTORS AFFECTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF RESEARCH PRACTICES

In all of science, but with unequal emphasis in the several disciplines, inquiry proceeds based on observation and experimentation, the exercising of informed judgment, and the development of theory. Research practices are influenced by a variety of factors, including:

The general norms of science;

The nature of particular scientific disciplines and the traditions of organizing a specific body of scientific knowledge;

The example of individual scientists, particularly those who hold positions of authority or respect based on scientific achievements;

The policies and procedures of research institutions and funding agencies; and

Socially determined expectations.

The first three factors have been important in the evolution of modern science. The latter two have acquired more importance in recent times.

Norms of Science

As members of a professional group, scientists share a set of common values, aspirations, training, and work experiences. 6 Scientists are distinguished from other groups by their beliefs about the kinds of relationships that should exist among them, about the obligations incurred by members of their profession, and about their role in society. A set of general norms are imbedded in the methods and the disciplines of science that guide individual, scientists in the organization and performance of their research efforts and that also provide a basis for nonscientists to understand and evaluate the performance of scientists.

But there is uncertainty about the extent to which individual scientists adhere to such norms. Most social scientists conclude that all behavior is influenced to some degree by norms that reflect socially or morally supported patterns of preference when alternative courses of action are possible. However, perfect conformity with any relevant set of norms is always lacking for a variety of reasons: the existence of competing norms, constraints, and obstacles in organizational or group settings, and personality factors. The strength of these influences, and the circumstances that may affect them, are not well understood.

In a classic statement of the importance of scientific norms, Robert Merton specified four norms as essential for the effective functioning of science: communism (by which Merton meant the communal sharing of ideas and findings), universalism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism (Merton, 1973). Neither Merton nor other sociologists of science have provided solid empirical evidence for the degree of influence of these norms in a representative sample of scientists. In opposition to Merton, a British sociologist of science, Michael Mulkay, has argued that these norms are “ideological” covers for self-interested behavior that reflects status and politics (Mulkay, 1975). And the British physicist and sociologist of science John Ziman, in an article synthesizing critiques of Merton's formulation, has specified a set of structural factors in the bureaucratic and corporate research environment that impede the realization of that particular set of norms: the proprietary nature of research, the local importance and funding of research, the authoritarian role of the research manager, commissioned research, and the required expertise in understanding how to use modern instruments (Ziman, 1990).

It is clear that the specific influence of norms on the development of scientific research practices is simply not known and that further study of key determinants is required, both theoretically and empirically. Commonsense views, ideologies, and anecdotes will not support a conclusive appraisal.

Individual Scientific Disciplines

Science comprises individual disciplines that reflect historical developments and the organization of natural and social phenomena for study. Social scientists may have methods for recording research data that differ from the methods of biologists, and scientists who depend on complex instrumentation may have authorship practices different from those of scientists who work in small groups or carry out field studies. Even within a discipline, experimentalists engage in research practices that differ from the procedures followed by theorists.

Disciplines are the “building blocks of science,” and they “designate the theories, problems, procedures, and solutions that are prescribed, proscribed, permitted, and preferred” (Zuckerman, 1988a, p. 520). The disciplines have traditionally provided the vital connections between scientific knowledge and its social organization. Scientific societies and scientific journals, some of which have tens of thousands of members and readers, and the peer review processes used by journals and research sponsors are visible forms of the social organization of the disciplines.

The power of the disciplines to shape research practices and standards is derived from their ability to provide a common frame of reference in evaluating the significance of new discoveries and theories in science. It is the members of a discipline, for example, who determine what is “good biology” or “good physics” by examining the implications of new research results. The disciplines' abilities to influence research standards are affected by the subjective quality of peer review and the extent to which factors other than disciplinary quality may affect judgments about scientific achievements. Disciplinary departments rely primarily on informal social and professional controls to promote responsible behavior and to penalize deviant behavior. These controls, such as social ostracism, the denial of letters of support for future employment, and the withholding of research resources, can deter and penalize unprofessional behavior within research institutions. 7

Many scientific societies representing individual disciplines have adopted explicit standards in the form of codes of ethics or guidelines governing, for example, the editorial practices of their journals and other publications. 8 Many societies have also established procedures for enforcing their standards. In the past decade, the societies' codes of ethics—which historically have been exhortations to uphold high standards of professional behavior—have incorporated specific guidelines relevant to authorship practices, data management, training and mentoring, conflict of interest, reporting research findings, treatment of confidential or proprietary information, and addressing error or misconduct.

The Role of Individual Scientists and Research Teams

The methods by which individual scientists and students are socialized in the principles and traditions of science are poorly understood. The principles of science and the practices of the disciplines are transmitted by scientists in classroom settings and, perhaps more importantly, in research groups and teams. The social setting of the research group is a strong and valuable characteristic of American science and education. The dynamics of research groups can foster—or inhibit—innovation, creativity, education, and collaboration.

One author of a historical study of research groups in the chemical and biochemical sciences has observed that the laboratory director or group leader is the primary determinant of a group's practices (Fruton, 1990). Individuals in positions of authority are visible and are also influential in determining funding and other support for the career paths of their associates and students. Research directors and department chairs, by virtue of personal example, thus can reinforce, or weaken, the power of disciplinary standards and scientific norms to affect research practices.

To the extent that the behavior of senior scientists conforms with general expectations for appropriate scientific and disciplinary practice, the research system is coherent and mutually reinforcing. When the behavior of research directors or department chairs diverges from expectations for good practice, however, the expected norms of science become ambiguous, and their effects are thus weakened. Thus personal example and the perceived behavior of role models and leaders in the research community can be powerful stimuli in shaping the research practices of colleagues, associates, and students.

The role of individuals in influencing research practices can vary by research field, institution, or time. The standards and expectations for behavior exemplified by scientists who are highly regarded for their technical competence or creative insight may have greater influence than the standards of others. Individual and group behaviors may also be more influential in times of uncertainty and change in science, especially when new scientific theories, paradigms, or institutional relationships are being established.

Institutional Policies

Universities, independent institutes, and government and industrial research organizations create the environment in which research is done. As the recipients of federal funds and the institutional sponsors of research activities, administrative officers must comply with regulatory and legal requirements that accompany public support. They are required, for example, “to foster a research environment that discourages misconduct in all research and that deals forthrightly with possible misconduct” (DHHS, 1989a, p. 32451).

Academic institutions traditionally have relied on their faculty to ensure that appropriate scientific and disciplinary standards are maintained. A few universities and other research institutions have also adopted policies or guidelines to clarify the principles that their members are expected to observe in the conduct of scientific research. 9 In addition, as a result of several highly publicized incidents of misconduct in science and the subsequent enactment of governmental regulations, most major research institutions have now adopted policies and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in science.

Institutional policies governing research practices can have a powerful effect on research practices if they are commensurate with the norms that apply to a wide spectrum of research investigators. In particular, the process of adopting and implementing strong institutional policies can sensitize the members of those institutions to the potential for ethical problems in their work. Institutional policies can establish explicit standards that institutional officers then have the power to enforce with sanctions and penalties.

Institutional policies are limited, however, in their ability to specify the details of every problematic situation, and they can weaken or displace individual professional judgment in such situations. Currently, academic institutions have very few formal policies and programs in specific areas such as authorship, communication and publication, and training and supervision.

Government Regulations and Policies

Government agencies have developed specific rules and procedures that directly affect research practices in areas such as laboratory safety, the treatment of human and animal research subjects, and the use of toxic or potentially hazardous substances in research.

But policies and procedures adopted by some government research agencies to address misconduct in science (see Chapter 5 ) represent a significant new regulatory development in the relationships between research institutions and government sponsors. The standards and criteria used to monitor institutional compliance with an increasing number of government regulations and policies affecting research practices have been a source of significant disagreement and tension within the research community.

In recent years, some government research agencies have also adopted policies and procedures for the treatment of research data and materials in their extramural research programs. For example, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has implemented a data-sharing policy through program management actions, including proposal review and award negotiations and conditions. The NSF policy acknowledges that grantee institutions will “keep principal rights to intellectual property conceived under NSF sponsorship” to encourage appropriate commercialization of the results of research (NSF, 1989b, p. 1). However, the NSF policy emphasizes “that retention of such rights does not reduce the responsibility of researchers and institutions to make results and supporting materials openly accessible” (p. 1).

In seeking to foster data sharing under federal grant awards, the government relies extensively on the scientific traditions of openness and sharing. Research agency officials have observed candidly that if the vast majority of scientists were not so committed to openness and dissemination, government policy might require more aggressive action. But the principles that have traditionally characterized scientific inquiry can be difficult to maintain. For example, NSF staff have commented, “Unless we can arrange real returns or incentives for the original investigator, either in financial support or in professional recognition, another researcher's request for sharing is likely to present itself as ‘hassle'—an unwelcome nuisance and diversion. Therefore, we should hardly be surprised if researchers display some reluctance to share in practice, however much they may declare and genuinely feel devotion to the ideal of open scientific communication” (NSF, 1989a, p. 4).

Social Attitudes and Expectations

Research scientists are part of a larger human society that has recently experienced profound changes in attitudes about ethics, morality, and accountability in business, the professions, and government. These attitudes have included greater skepticism of the authority of experts and broader expectations about the need for visible mechanisms to assure proper research practices, especially in areas that affect the public welfare. Social attitudes are also having a more direct influence on research practices as science achieves a more prominent and public role in society. In particular, concern about waste, fraud, and abuse involving government funds has emerged as a factor that now directly influences the practices of the research community.

Varying historical and conceptual perspectives also can affect expectations about standards of research practice. For example, some journalists have criticized several prominent scientists, such as Mendel, Newton, and Millikan, because they “cut corners in order to make their theories prevail” (Broad and Wade, 1982, p. 35). The criticism suggests that all scientists at all times, in all phases of their work, should be bound by identical standards.

Yet historical studies of the social context in which scientific knowledge has been attained suggest that modern criticism of early scientific work often imposes contemporary standards of objectivity and empiricism that have in fact been developed in an evolutionary manner. 10 Holton has argued, for example, that in selecting data for publication, Millikan exercised creative insight in excluding unreliable data resulting from experimental error. But such practices, by today's standards, would not be acceptable without reporting the justification for omission of recorded data.

In the early stages of pioneering studies, particularly when fundamental hypotheses are subject to change, scientists must be free to use creative judgment in deciding which data are truly significant. In such moments, the standards of proof may be quite different from those that apply at stages when confirmation and consensus are sought from peers. Scientists must consistently guard against self-deception, however, particularly when theoretical prejudices tend to overwhelm the skepticism and objectivity basic to experimental practices.

In discussing “the theory-ladenness of observations,” Sapp (1990) observed the fundamental paradox that can exist in determining the “appropriateness” of data selection in certain experiments done in the past: scientists often craft their experiments so that the scientific problems and research subjects conform closely with the theory that they expect to verify or refute. Thus, in some cases, their observations may come closer to theoretical expectations than what might be statistically proper.

This source of bias may be acceptable when it is influenced by scientific insight and judgment. But political, financial, or other sources of bias can corrupt the process of data selection. In situations where both kinds of influence exist, it is particularly important for scientists to be forthcoming about possible sources of bias in the interpretation of research results. The coupling of science to other social purposes in fostering economic growth and commercial technology requires renewed vigilance to maintain acceptable standards for disclosure and control of financial or competitive conflicts of interest and bias in the research environment. The failure to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate sources of bias in research practices can lead to erosion of public trust in the autonomy of the research enterprise.

• RESEARCH PRACTICES

In reviewing modern research practices for a range of disciplines, and analyzing factors that could affect the integrity of the research process, the panel focused on the following four areas:

Data handling—acquisition, management, and storage;

Communication and publication;

Correction of errors; and

Research training and mentorship.

Commonly understood practices operate in each area to promote responsible research conduct; nevertheless, some questionable research practices also occur. Some research institutions, scientific societies, and journals have established policies to discourage questionable practices, but there is not yet a consensus on how to treat violations of these policies. 11 Furthermore, there is concern that some questionable practices may be encouraged or stimulated by other institutional factors. For example, promotion or appointment policies that stress quantity rather than the quality of publications as a measure of productivity could contribute to questionable practices.

Data Handling

Acquisition and management.

Scientific experiments and measurements are transformed into research data. The term “research data” applies to many different forms of scientific information, including raw numbers and field notes, machine tapes and notebooks, edited and categorized observations, interpretations and analyses, derived reagents and vectors, and tables, charts, slides, and photographs.

Research data are the basis for reporting discoveries and experimental results. Scientists traditionally describe the methods used for an experiment, along with appropriate calibrations, instrument types, the number of repeated measurements, and particular conditions that may have led to the omission of some datain the reported version. Standard procedures, innovations for particular purposes, and judgments concerning the data are also reported. The general standard of practice is to provide information that is sufficiently complete so that another scientist can repeat or extend the experiment.

When a scientist communicates a set of results and a related piece of theory or interpretation in any form (at a meeting, in a journal article, or in a book), it is assumed that the research has been conducted as reported. It is a violation of the most fundamental aspect of the scientific research process to set forth measurements that have not, in fact, been performed (fabrication) or to ignore or change relevant data that contradict the reported findings (falsification).

On occasion what is actually proper research practice may be confused with misconduct in science. Thus, for example, applying scientific judgment to refine data and to remove spurious results places special responsibility on the researcher to avoid misrepresentation of findings. Responsible practice requires that scientists disclose the basis for omitting or modifying data in their analyses of research results, especially when such omissions or modifications could alter the interpretation or significance of their work.

In the last decade, the methods by which research scientists handle, store, and provide access to research data have received increased scrutiny, owing to conflicts, over ownership, such as those described by Nelkin (1984); advances in the methods and technologies that are used to collect, retain, and share data; and the costs of data storage. More specific concerns have involved the profitability associated with the patenting of science-based results in some fields and the need to verify independently the accuracy of research results used in public or private decision making. In resolving competing claims, the interests of individual scientists and research institutions may not always coincide: researchers may be willing to exchange scientific data of possible economic significance without regard for financial or institutional implications, whereas their institutions may wish to establish intellectual property rights and obligations prior to any disclosure.

The general norms of science emphasize the principle of openness. Scientists are generally expected to exchange research data as well as unique research materials that are essential to the replication or extension of reported findings. The 1985 report Sharing Research Data concluded that the general principle of data sharing is widely accepted, especially in the behavioral and social sciences (NRC, 1985). The report catalogued the benefits of data sharing, including maintaining the integrity of the research process by providing independent opportunities for verification, refutation, or refinement of original results and data; promoting new research and the development and testing of new theories; and encouraging appropriate use of empirical data in policy formulation and evaluation. The same report examined obstacles to data sharing, which include the criticism or competition that might be stimulated by data sharing; technical barriers that may impede the exchange of computer-readable data; lack of documentation of data sets; and the considerable costs of documentation, duplication, and transfer of data.

The exchange of research data and reagents is ideally governed by principles of collegiality and reciprocity: scientists often distribute reagents with the hope that the recipient will reciprocate in the future, and some give materials out freely with no stipulations attached. 12 Scientists who repeatedly or flagrantly deviate from the tradition of sharing become known to their peers and may suffer subtle forms of professional isolation. Such cases may be well known to senior research investigators, but they are not well documented.

Some scientists may share materials as part of a collaborative agreement in exchange for co-authorship on resulting publications. Some donors stipulate that the shared materials are not to be used for applications already being pursued by the donor's laboratory. Other stipulations include that the material not be passed on to third parties without prior authorization, that the material not be used for proprietary research, or that the donor receive prepublication copies of research publications derived from the material. In some instances, so-called materials transfer agreements are executed to specify the responsibilities of donor and recipient. As more academic research is being supported under proprietary agreements, researchers and institutions are experiencing the effects of these arrangements on research practices.

Governmental support for research studies may raise fundamental questions of ownership and rights of control, particularly when data are subsequently used in proprietary efforts, public policy decisions, or litigation. Some federal research agencies have adopted policies for data sharing to mitigate conflicts over issues of ownership and access (NIH, 1987; NSF, 1989b).

Many research investigators store primary data in the laboratories in which the data were initially derived, generally as electronic records or data sheets in laboratory notebooks. For most academic laboratories, local customary practice governs the storage (or discarding) of research data. Formal rules or guidelines concerning their disposition are rare.

Many laboratories customarily store primary data for a set period (often 3 to 5 years) after they are initially collected. Data that support publications are usually retained for a longer period than are those tangential to reported results. Some research laboratories serve as the proprietor of data and data books that are under the stewardship of the principal investigator. Others maintain that it is the responsibility of the individuals who collected the data to retain proprietorship, even if they leave the laboratory.

Concerns about misconduct in science have raised questions about the roles of research investigators and of institutions in maintaining and providing access to primary data. In some cases of alleged misconduct, the inability or unwillingness of an investigator to provide primary data or witnesses to support published reports sometimes has constituted a presumption that the experiments were not conducted as reported. 13 Furthermore, there is disagreement about the responsibilities of investigators to provide access to raw data, particularly when the reported results have been challenged by others. Many scientists believe that access should be restricted to peers and colleagues, usually following publication of research results, to reduce external demands on the time of the investigator. Others have suggested that raw data supporting research reports should be accessible to any critic or competitor, at any time, especially if the research is conducted with public funds. This topic, in particular, could benefit from further research and systematic discussion to clarify the rights and responsibilities of research investigators, institutions, and sponsors.

Institutional policies have been developed to guide data storage practices in some fields, often stimulated by desires to support the patenting of scientific results and to provide documentation for resolving disputes over patent claims. Laboratories concerned with patents usually have very strict rules concerning data storage and note keeping, often requiring that notes be recorded in an indelible form and be countersigned by an authorized person each day. A few universities have also considered the creation of central storage repositories for all primary data collected by their research investigators. Some government research institutions and industrial research centers maintain such repositories to safeguard the record of research developments for scientific, historical, proprietary, and national security interests.

In the academic environment, however, centralized research records raise complex problems of ownership, control, and access. Centralized data storage is costly in terms of money and space, and it presents logistical problems of cataloguing and retrieving data. There have been suggestions that some types of scientific data should be incorporated into centralized computerized data banks, a portion of which could be subject to periodic auditing or certification. 14 But much investigator-initiated research is not suitable for random data audits because of the exploratory nature of basic or discovery research. 15

Some scientific journals now require that full data for research papers be deposited in a centralized data bank before final publication. Policies and practices differ, but in some fields support is growing for compulsory deposit to enhance researchers' access to supporting data.

Issues Related to Advances in Information Technology

Advances in electronic and other information technologies have raised new questions about the customs and practices that influence the storage, ownership, and exchange of electronic data and software. A number of special issues, not addressed by the panel, are associated with computer modeling, simulation, and other approaches that are becoming more prevalent in the research environment. Computer technology can enhance research collaboration; it can also create new impediments to data sharing resulting from increased costs, the need for specialized equipment, or liabilities or uncertainties about responsibilities for faulty data, software, or computer-generated models.

Advances in computer technology may assist in maintaining and preserving accurate records of research data. Such records could help resolve questions about the timing or accuracy of specific research findings, especially when a principal investigator is not available or is uncooperative in responding to such questions. In principle, properly managed information technologies, utilizing advances in nonerasable optical disk systems, might reinforce openness in scientific research and make primary data more transparent to collaborators and research managers. For example, the so-called WORM (write once, read many) systems provide a high-density digital storage medium that supplies an ineradicable audit trail and historical record for all entered information (Haas, 1991).

Advances in information technologies could thus provide an important benefit to research institutions that wish to emphasize greater access to and storage of primary research data. But the development of centralized information systems in the academic research environment raises difficult issues of ownership, control, and principle that reflect the decentralized character of university governance. Such systems are also a source of additional research expense, often borne by individual investigators. Moreover, if centralized systems are perceived by scientists as an inappropriate or ineffective form of management or oversight of individual research groups, they simply may not work in an academic environment.

Communication and Publication

Scientists communicate research results by a variety of formal and informal means. In earlier times, new findings and interpretations were communicated by letter, personal meeting, and publication. Today, computer networks and facsimile machines have supplemented letters and telephones in facilitating rapid exchange of results. Scientific meetings routinely include poster sessions and press conferences as well as formal presentations. Although research publications continue to document research findings, the appearance of electronic publications and other information technologies heralds change. In addition, incidents of plagiarism, the increasing number of authors per article in selected fields, and the methods by which publications are assessed in determining appointments and promotions have all increased concerns about the traditions and practices that have guided communication and publication.

Journal publication, traditionally an important means of sharing information and perspectives among scientists, is also a principal means of establishing a record of achievement in science. Evaluation of the accomplishments of individual scientists often involves not only the numbers of articles that have resulted from a selected research effort, but also the particular journals in which the articles have appeared. Journal submission dates are often important in establishing priority and intellectual property claims.

Authorship of original research reports is an important indicator of accomplishment, priority, and prestige within the scientific community. Questions of authorship in science are intimately connected with issues of credit and responsibility. Authorship practices are guided by disciplinary traditions, customary practices within research groups, and professional and journal standards and policies. 16 There is general acceptance of the principle that each named author has made a significant intellectual contribution to the paper, even though there remains substantial disagreement over the types of contributions that are judged to be significant.

A general rule is that an author must have participated sufficiently in the work to take responsibility for its content and vouch for its validity. Some journals have adopted more specific guidelines, suggesting that credit for authorship be contingent on substantial participation in one or more of the following categories: (1) conception and design of the experiment, (2) execution of the experiment and collection and storage of the supporting data, (3) analysis and interpretation of the primary data, and (4) preparation and revision of the manuscript. The extent of participation in these four activities required for authorship varies across journals, disciplines, and research groups. 17

“Honorary,” “gift,” or other forms of noncontributing authorship are problems with several dimensions. 18 Honorary authors reap an inflated list of publications incommensurate with their scientific contributions (Zen, 1988). Some scientists have requested or been given authorship as a form of recognition of their status or influence rather than their intellectual contribution. Some research leaders have a custom of including their own names in any paper issuing from their laboratory, although this practice is increasingly discouraged. Some students or junior staff encourage such “gift authorship” because they feel that the inclusion of prestigious names on their papers increases the chance of publication in well-known journals. In some cases, noncontributing authors have been listed without their consent, or even without their being told. In response to these practices, some journals now require all named authors to sign the letter that accompanies submission of the original article, to ensure that no author is named without consent.

“Specialized” authorship is another issue that has received increasing attention. In these cases, a co-author may claim responsibility for a specialized portion of the paper and may not even see or be able to defend the paper as a whole. 19 “Specialized” authorship may also result from demands that co-authorship be given as a condition of sharing a unique research reagent or selected data that do not constitute a major contribution—demands that many scientists believe are inappropriate. “Specialized” authorship may be appropriate in cross-disciplinary collaborations, in which each participant has made an important contribution that deserves recognition. However, the risks associated with the inabilities of co-authors to vouch for the integrity of an entire paper are great; scientists may unwittingly become associated with a discredited publication.

Another problem of lesser importance, except to the scientists involved, is the order of authors listed on a paper. The meaning of author order varies among and within disciplines. For example, in physics the ordering of authors is frequently alphabetical, whereas in the social sciences and other fields, the ordering reflects a descending order of contribution to the described research. Another practice, common in biology, is to list the senior author last.

Appropriate recognition for the contributions of junior investigators, postdoctoral fellows, and graduate students is sometimes a source of discontent and unease in the contemporary research environment. Junior researchers have raised concerns about treatment of their contributions when research papers are prepared and submitted, particularly if they are attempting to secure promotions or independent research funding or if they have left the original project. In some cases, well-meaning senior scientists may grant junior colleagues undeserved authorship or placement as a means of enhancing the junior colleague's reputation. In others, significant contributions may not receive appropriate recognition.

Authorship practices are further complicated by large-scale projects, especially those that involve specialized contributions. Mission teams for space probes, oceanographic expeditions, and projects in high-energy physics, for example, all involve large numbers of senior scientists who depend on the long-term functioning of complex equipment. Some questions about communication and publication that arise from large science projects such as the Superconducting Super Collider include: Who decides when an experiment is ready to be published? How is the spokesperson for the experiment determined? Who determines who can give talks on the experiment? How should credit for technical or hardware contributions be acknowledged?

Apart from plagiarism, problems of authorship and credit allocation usually do not involve misconduct in science. Although some forms of “gift authorship,” in which a designated author made no identifiable contribution to a paper, may be viewed as instances of falsification, authorship disputes more commonly involve unresolved differences of judgment and style. Many research groups have found that the best method of resolving authorship questions is to agree on a designation of authors at the outset of the project. The negotiation and decision process provides initial recognition of each member's effort, and it may prevent misunderstandings that can arise during the course of the project when individuals may be in transition to new efforts or may become preoccupied with other matters.

Plagiarism. Plagiarism is using the ideas or words of another person without giving appropriate credit. Plagiarism includes the unacknowledged use of text and ideas from published work, as well as the misuse of privileged information obtained through confidential review of research proposals and manuscripts.

As described in Honor in Science, plagiarism can take many forms: at one extreme is the exact replication of another's writing without appropriate attribution (Sigma Xi, 1986). At the other is the more subtle “borrowing” of ideas, terms, or paraphrases, as described by Martin et al., “so that the result is a mosaic of other people's ideas and words, the writer's sole contribution being the cement to hold the pieces together.” 20 The importance of recognition for one's intellectual abilities in science demands high standards of accuracy and diligence in ensuring appropriate recognition for the work of others.

The misuse of privileged information may be less clear-cut because it does not involve published work. But the general principles of the importance of giving credit to the accomplishments of others are the same. The use of ideas or information obtained from peer review is not acceptable because the reviewer is in a privileged position. Some organizations, such as the American Chemical Society, have adopted policies to address these concerns (ACS, 1986).

Additional Concerns. Other problems related to authorship include overspecialization, overemphasis on short-term projects, and the organization of research communication around the “least publishable unit.” In a research system that rewards quantity at the expense of quality and favors speed over attention to detail (the effects of “publish or perish”), scientists who wait until their research data are complete before releasing them for publication may be at a disadvantage. Some institutions, such as Harvard Medical School, have responded to these problems by limiting the number of publications reviewed for promotion. Others have placed greater emphasis on major contributions as the basis for evaluating research productivity.

As gatekeepers of scientific journals, editors are expected to use good judgment and fairness in selecting papers for publication. Although editors cannot be held responsible for the errors or inaccuracies of papers that may appear in their journals, editors have obligations to consider criticism and evidence that might contradict the claims of an author and to facilitate publication of critical letters, errata, or retractions. 21 Some institutions, including the National Library of Medicine and professional societies that represent editors of scientific journals, are exploring the development of standards relevant to these obligations (Bailar et al., 1990).

Should questions be raised about the integrity of a published work, the editor may request an author's institution to address the matter. Editors often request written assurances that research reported conforms to all appropriate guidelines involving human or animal subjects, materials of human origin, or recombinant DNA.

In theory, editors set standards of authorship for their journals. In practice, scientists in the specialty do. Editors may specify the. terms of acknowledgment of contributors who fall short of authorship status, and make decisions regarding appropriate forms of disclosure of sources of bias or other potential conflicts of interest related to published articles. For example, the New England Journal of Medicine has established a category of prohibited contributions from authors engaged in for-profit ventures: the journal will not allow such persons to prepare review articles or editorial commentaries for publication. Editors can clarify and insist on the confidentiality of review and take appropriate actions against reviewers who violate it. Journals also may require or encourage their authors to deposit reagents and sequence and crystallographic data into appropriate databases or storage facilities. 22

Peer Review

Peer review is the process by which editors and journals seek to be advised by knowledgeable colleagues about the quality and suitability of a manuscript for publication in a journal. Peer review is also used by funding agencies to seek advice concerning the quality and promise of proposals for research support. The proliferation of research journals and the rewards associated with publication and with obtaining research grants have put substantial stress on the peer review system. Reviewers for journals or research agencies receive privileged information and must exert great care to avoid sharing such information with colleagues or allowing it to enter their own work prematurely.

Although the system of peer review is generally effective, it has been suggested that the quality of refereeing has declined, that self-interest has crept into the review process, and that some journal editors and reviewers exert inappropriate influence on the type of work they deem publishable. 23

Correction of Errors

At some level, all scientific reports, even those that mark profound advances, contain errors of fact or interpretation. In part, such errors reflect uncertainties intrinsic to the research process itself—a hypothesis is formulated, an experimental test is devised, and based on the interpretation of the results, the hypothesis is refined, revised, or discarded. Each step in this cycle is subject to error. For any given report, “correctness” is limited by the following:

The precision and accuracy of the measurements. These in turn depend on available technology, the use of proper statistical and analytical methods, and the skills of the investigator.

Generality of the experimental system and approach. Studies must often be carried out using “model systems.” In biology, for example, a given phenomenon is examined in only one or a few among millions of organismal species.

Experimental design—a product of the background and expertise of the investigator.

Interpretation and speculation regarding the significance of the findings—judgments that depend on expert knowledge, experience, and the insightfulness and boldness of the investigator.

Viewed in this context, errors are an integral aspect of progress in attaining scientific knowledge. They are consequences of the fact that scientists seek fundamental truths about natural processes of vast complexity. In the best experimental systems, it is common that relatively few variables have been identified and that even fewer can be controlled experimentally. Even when important variables are accounted for, the interpretation of the experimental results may be incorrect and may lead to an erroneous conclusion. Such conclusions are sometimes overturned by the original investigator or by others when new insights from another study prompt a reexamination of older reported data. In addition, however, erroneous information can also reach the scientific literature as a consequence of misconduct in science.

What becomes of these errors or incorrect interpretations? Much has been made of the concept that science is “self-correcting”—that errors, whether honest or products of misconduct, will be exposed in future experiments because scientific truth is founded on the principle that results must be verifiable and reproducible. This implies that errors will generally not long confound the direction of thinking or experimentation in actively pursued areas of research. Clearly, published experiments are not routinely replicated precisely by independent investigators. However, each experiment is based on conclusions from prior studies; repeated failure of the experiment eventually calls into question those conclusions and leads to reevaluation of the measurements, generality, design, and interpretation of the earlier work.

Thus publication of a scientific report provides an opportunity for the community at large to critique and build on the substance of the report, and serves as one stage at which errors and misinterpretations can be detected and corrected. Each new finding is considered by the community in light of what is already known about the system investigated, and disagreements with established measurements and interpretations must be justified. For example, a particular interpretation of an electrical measurement of a material may implicitly predict the results of an optical experiment. If the reported optical results are in disagreement with the electrical interpretation, then the latter is unlikely to be correct—even though the measurements themselves were carefully and correctly performed. It is also possible, however, that the contradictory results are themselves incorrect, and this possibility will also be evaluated by the scientists working in the field. It is by this process of examination and reexamination that science advances.

The research endeavor can therefore be viewed as a two-tiered process: first, hypotheses are formulated, tested, and modified; second, results and conclusions are reevaluated in the course of additional study. In fact, the two tiers are interrelated, and the goals and traditions of science mandate major responsibilities in both areas for individual investigators. Importantly, the principle of self-correction does not diminish the responsibilities of the investigator in either area. The investigator has a fundamental responsibility to ensure that the reported results can be replicated in his or her laboratory. The scientific community in general adheres strongly to this principle, but practical constraints exist as a result of the availability of specialized instrumentation, research materials, and expert personnel. Other forces, such as competition, commercial interest, funding trends and availability, or pressure to publish may also erode the role of replication as a mechanism for fostering integrity in the research process. The panel is unaware of any quantitative studies of this issue.

The process of reevaluating prior findings is closely related to the formulation and testing of hypotheses. 24 Indeed, within an individual laboratory, the formulation/testing phase and the reevaluation phase are ideally ongoing interactive processes. In that setting, the precise replication of a prior result commonly serves as a crucial control in attempts to extend the original findings. It is not unusual that experimental flaws or errors of interpretation are revealed as the scope of an investigation deepens and broadens.

If new findings or significant questions emerge in the course of a reevaluation that affect the claims of a published report, the investigator is obliged to make public a correction of the erroneous result or to indicate the nature of the questions. Occasionally, this takes the form of a formal published retraction, especially in situations in which a central claim is found to be fundamentally incorrect or irreproducible. More commonly, a somewhat different version of the original experiment, or a revised interpretation of the original result, is published as part of a subsequent report that extends in other ways the initial work. Some concerns have been raised that such “revisions” can sometimes be so subtle and obscure as to be unrecognizable. Such behavior is, at best, a questionable research practice. Clearly, each scientist has a responsibility to foster an environment that encourages and demands rigorous evaluation and reevaluation of every key finding.

Much greater complexity is encountered when an investigator in one research group is unable to confirm the published findings of another. In such situations, precise replication of the original result is commonly not attempted because of the lack of identical reagents, differences in experimental protocols, diverse experimental goals, or differences in personnel. Under these circumstances, attempts to obtain the published result may simply be dropped if the central claim of the original study is not the major focus of the new study. Alternatively, the inability to obtain the original finding may be documented in a paper by the second investigator as part of a challenge to the original claim. In any case, such questions about a published finding usually provoke the initial investigator to attempt to reconfirm the original result, or to pursue additional studies that support and extend the original findings.

In accordance with established principles of science, scientists have the responsibility to replicate and reconfirm their results as a normal part of the research process. The cycles of theoretical and methodological formulation, testing, and reevaluation, both within and between laboratories, produce an ongoing process of revision and refinement that corrects errors and strengthens the fabric of research.

Research Training and Mentorship

The panel defined a mentor as that person directly responsible for the professional development of a research trainee. 25 Professional development includes both technical training, such as instruction in the methods of scientific research (e.g., research design, instrument use, and selection of research questions and data), and socialization in basic research practices (e.g., authorship practices and sharing of research data).

Positive Aspects of Mentorship

The relationship of the mentor and research trainee is usually characterized by extraordinary mutual commitment and personal involvement. A mentor, as a research advisor, is generally expected to supervise the work of the trainee and ensure that the trainee's research is completed in a sound, honest, and timely manner. The ideal mentor challenges the trainee, spurs the trainee to higher scientific achievement, and helps socialize the trainee into the community of scientists by demonstrating and discussing methods and practices that are not well understood.

Research mentors thus have complex and diverse roles. Many individuals excel in providing guidance and instruction as well as personal support, and some mentors are resourceful in providing funds and securing professional opportunities for their trainees. The mentoring relationship may also combine elements of other relationships, such as parenting, coaching, and guildmastering. One mentor has written that his “research group is like an extended family or small tribe, dependent on one another, but led by the mentor, who acts as their consultant, critic, judge, advisor, and scientific father” (Cram, 1989, p. 1). Another mentor described as “orphaned graduate students” trainees who had lost their mentors to death, job changes, or in other ways (Sindermann, 1987). Many students come to respect and admire their mentors, who act as role models for their younger colleagues.

Difficulties Associated with Mentorship

However, the mentoring relationship does not always function properly or even satisfactorily. Almost no literature exists that evaluates which problems are idiosyncratic and which are systemic. However, it is clear that traditional practices in the area of mentorship and training are under stress. In some research fields, for example, concerns are being raised about how the increasing size and diverse composition of research groups affect the quality of the relationship between trainee and mentor. As the size of research laboratories expands, the quality of the training environment is at risk (CGS, 1990a).

Large laboratories may provide valuable instrumentation and access to unique research skills and resources as well as an opportunity to work in pioneering fields of science. But as only one contribution to the efforts of a large research team, a graduate student's work may become highly specialized, leading to a narrowing of experience and greater dependency on senior personnel; in a period when the availability of funding may limit research opportunities, laboratory heads may find it necessary to balance research decisions for the good of the team against the individual educational interests of each trainee. Moreover, the demands of obtaining sufficient resources to maintain a laboratory in the contemporary research environment often separate faculty from their trainees. When laboratory heads fail to participate in the everyday workings of the laboratory—even for the most beneficent of reasons, such as finding funds to support young investigators—their inattention may harm their trainees' education.

Although the size of a research group can influence the quality of mentorship, the more important issues are the level of supervision received by trainees, the degree of independence that is appropriate for the trainees' experience and interests, and the allocation of credit for achievements that are accomplished by groups composed of individuals with different status. Certain studies involving large groups of 40 to 100 or more are commonly carried out by collaborative or hierarchical arrangements under a single investigator. These factors may affect the ability of research mentors to transmit the methods and ethical principles according to which research should be conducted.

Problems also arise when faculty members are not directly rewarded for their graduate teaching or training skills. Although faculty may receive indirect rewards from the contributions of well-trained graduate students to their own research as well as the satisfaction of seeing their students excelling elsewhere, these rewards may not be sufficiently significant in tenure or promotion decisions. When institutional policies fail to recognize and reward the value of good teaching and mentorship, the pressures to maintain stable funding for research teams in a competitive environment can overwhelm the time allocated to teaching and mentorship by a single investigator.

The increasing duration of the training period in many research fields is another source of concern, particularly when it prolongs the dependent status of the junior investigator. The formal period of graduate and postdoctoral training varies considerably among fields of study. In 1988, the median time to the doctorate from the baccalaureate degree was 6.5 years (NRC, 1989). The disciplinary median varied: 5.5 years in chemistry; 5.9 years in engineering; 7.1 years in health sciences and in earth, atmospheric, and marine sciences; and 9.0 years in anthropology and sociology. 26

Students, research associates, and faculty are currently raising various questions about the rights and obligations of trainees. Sexist behavior by some research directors and other senior scientists is a particular source of concern. Another significant concern is that research trainees may be subject to exploitation because of their subordinate status in the research laboratory, particularly when their income, access to research resources, and future recommendations are dependent on the goodwill of the mentor. Foreign students and postdoctoral fellows may be especially vulnerable, since their immigration status often depends on continuation of a research relationship with the selected mentor.

Inequalities between mentor and trainee can exacerbate ordinary conflicts such as the distribution of credit or blame for research error (NAS, 1989). When conflicts arise, the expectations and assumptions that govern authorship practices, ownership of intellectual property, and the giving of references and recommendations are exposed for professional—and even legal—scrutiny (Nelkin, 1984; Weil and Snapper, 1989).

Making Mentorship Better

Ideally, mentors and trainees should select each other with an eye toward scientific merit, intellectual and personal compatibility, and other relevant factors. But this situation operates only under conditions of freely available information and unconstrained choice—conditions that usually do not exist in academic research groups. The trainee may choose to work with a faculty member based solely on criteria of patronage, perceived influence, or ability to provide financial support.

Good mentors may be well known and highly regarded within their research communities and institutions. Unfortunately, individuals who exploit the mentorship relationship may be less visible. Poor mentorship practices may be self-correcting over time, if students can detect and avoid research groups characterized by disturbing practices. However, individual trainees who experience abusive relationships with a mentor may discover only too late that the practices that constitute the abuse were well known but were not disclosed to new initiates.

It is common practice for a graduate student to be supervised not only by an individual mentor but also by a committee that represents the graduate department or research field of the student. However, departmental oversight is rare for the postdoctoral research fellow. In order to foster good mentorship practices for all research trainees, many groups and institutions have taken steps to clarify the nature of individual and institutional responsibilities in the mentor–trainee relationship. 27

• FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The self-regulatory system that characterizes the research process has evolved from a diverse set of principles, traditions, standards, and customs transmitted from senior scientists, research directors, and department chairs to younger scientists by example, discussion, and informal education. The principles of honesty, collegiality, respect for others, and commitment to dissemination, critical evaluation, and rigorous training are characteristic of all the sciences. Methods and techniques of experimentation, styles of communicating findings, the relationship between theory and experimentation, and laboratory groupings for research and for training vary with the particular scientific disciplines. Within those disciplines, practices combine the general with the specific. Ideally, research practices reflect the values of the wider research community and also embody the practical skills needed to conduct scientific research.

Practicing scientists are guided by the principles of science and the standard practices of their particular scientific discipline as well as their personal moral principles. But conflicts are inherent among these principles. For example, loyalty to one's group of colleagues can be in conflict with the need to correct or report an abuse of scientific practice on the part of a member of that group.

Because scientists and the achievements of science have earned the respect of society at large, the behavior of scientists must accord not only with the expectations of scientific colleagues, but also with those of a larger community. As science becomes more closely linked to economic and political objectives, the processes by which scientists formulate and adhere to responsible research practices will be subject to increasing public scrutiny. This is one reason for scientists and research institutions to clarify and strengthen the methods by which they foster responsible research practices.

Accordingly, the panel emphasizes the following conclusions:

• The panel believes that the existing self-regulatory system in science is sound. But modifications are necessary to foster integrity in a changing research environment, to handle cases of misconduct in science, and to discourage questionable research practices.
• Individual scientists have a fundamental responsibility to ensure that their results are reproducible, that their research is reported thoroughly enough so that results are reproducible, and that significant errors are corrected when they are recognized. Editors of scientific journals share these last two responsibilities.
• Research mentors, laboratory directors, department heads, and senior faculty are responsible for defining, explaining, exemplifying, and requiring adherence to the value systems of their institutions. The neglect of sound training in a mentor's laboratory will over time compromise the integrity of the research process.
• Administrative officials within the research institution also bear responsibility for ensuring that good scientific practices are observed in units of appropriate jurisdiction and that balanced reward systems appropriately recognize research quality, integrity, teaching, and mentorship. Adherence to scientific principles and disciplinary standards is at the root of a vital and productive research environment.
• At present, scientific principles are passed on to trainees primarily by example and discussion, including training in customary practices. Most research institutions do not have explicit programs of instruction and discussion to foster responsible research practices, but the communication of values and traditions is critical to fostering responsible research practices and detering misconduct in science.
• Efforts to foster responsible research practices in areas such as data handling, communication and publication, and research training and mentorship deserve encouragement by the entire research community. Problems have also developed in these areas that require explicit attention and correction by scientists and their institutions. If not properly resolved, these problems may weaken the integrity of the research process.

1. See, for example, Kuyper (1991).

2. See, for example, the proposal by Pigman and Carmichael (1950).

3. See, for example, Holton (1988) and Ravetz (1971).

4. Several excellent books on experimental design and statistical methods are available. See, for example, Wilson (1952) and Beveridge (1957).

5. For a somewhat dated review of codes of ethics adopted by the scientific and engineering societies, see Chalk et al. (1981).

6. The discussion in this section is derived from Mark Frankel's background paper, “Professional Societies and Responsible Research Conduct,” included in Volume II of this report.

7. For a broader discussion on this point, see Zuckerman (1977).

8. For a full discussion of the roles of scientific societies in fostering responsible research practices, see the background paper prepared by Mark Frankel, “Professional Societies and Responsible Research Conduct,” in Volume II of this report.

9. Selected examples of academic research conduct policies and guidelines are included in Volume II of this report.

10. See, for example, Holton's response to the criticisms of Millikan in Chapter 12 of Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought (Holton, 1988). See also Holton (1978).

11. See, for example, responses to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences action against Friedman: Hamilton (1990) and Abelson et al. (1990). See also the discussion in Bailar et al. (1990).

12. Much of the discussion in this section is derived from a background paper, “Reflections on the Current State of Data and Reagent Exchange Among Biomedical Researchers,” prepared by Robert Weinberg and included in Volume II of this report.

13. See, for example, Culliton (1990) and Bradshaw et al. (1990). For the impact of the inability to provide corroborating data or witnesses, also see Ross et al. (1989).

14. See, for example, Rennie (1989) and Cassidy and Shamoo (1989).

15. See, for example, the discussion on random data audits in Institute of Medicine (1989a), pp. 26-27.

16. For a full discussion of the practices and policies that govern authorship in the biological sciences, see Bailar et al. (1990).

17. Note that these general guidelines exclude the provision of reagents or facilities or the supervision of research as a criteria of authorship.

18. A full discussion of problematic practices in authorship is included in Bailar et al. (1990). A controversial review of the responsibilities of co-authors is presented by Stewart and Feder (1987).

19. In the past, scientific papers often included a special note by a named researcher, not a co-author of the paper, who described, for example, a particular substance or procedure in a footnote or appendix. This practice seems to.have been abandoned for reasons that are not well understood.

20. Martin et al. (1969), as cited in Sigma Xi (1986), p. 41.

21. Huth (1988) suggests a “notice of fraud or notice of suspected fraud” issued by the journal editor to call attention to the controversy (p. 38). Angell (1983) advocates closer coordination between institutions and editors when institutions have ascertained misconduct.

22. Such facilities include Cambridge Crystallographic Data Base, GenBank at Los Alamos National Laboratory, the American Type Culture Collection, and the Protein Data Bank at Brookhaven National Laboratory. Deposition is important for data that cannot be directly printed because of large volume.

23. For more complete discussions of peer review in the wider context, see, for example, Cole et al. (1977) and Chubin and Hackett (1990).

24. The strength of theories as sources of the formulation of scientific laws and predictive power varies among different fields of science. For example, theories derived from observations in the field of evolutionary biology lack a great deal of predictive power. The role of chance in mutation and natural selection is great, and the future directions that evolution may take are essentially impossible to predict. Theory has enormous power for clarifying understanding of how evolution has occurred and for making sense of detailed data, but its predictive power in this field is very limited. See, for example, Mayr (1982, 1988).

25. Much of the discussion on mentorship is derived from a background paper prepared for the panel by David Guston. A copy of the full paper, “Mentorship and the Research Training Experience,” is included in Volume II of this report.

26. Although the time to the doctorate is increasing, there is some evidence that the magnitude of the increase may be affected by the organization of the cohort chosen for study. In the humanities, the increased time to the doctorate is not as large if one chooses as an organizational base the year in which the baccalaureate was received by Ph.D. recipients, rather than the year in which the Ph.D. was completed; see Bowen et al. (1991).

27. Some universities have written guidelines for the supervision or mentorship of trainees as part of their institutional research policy guidelines (see, for example, the guidelines adopted by Harvard University and the University of Michigan that are included in Volume II of this report). Other groups or institutions have written “guidelines” (IOM, 1989a; NIH, 1990), “checklists” (CGS, 1990a), and statements of “areas of concern” and suggested “devices” (CGS, 1990c).

The guidelines often affirm the need for regular, personal interaction between the mentor and the trainee. They indicate that mentors may need to limit the size of their laboratories so that they are able to interact directly and frequently with all of their trainees. Although there are many ways to ensure responsible mentorship, methods that provide continuous feedback, whether through formal or informal mechanisms, are apt to be the most successful (CGS, 1990a). Departmental mentorship awards (comparable to teaching or research prizes) can recognize, encourage, and enhance the mentoring relationship. For other discussions on mentorship, see the paper by David Guston in Volume II of this report.

One group convened by the Institute of Medicine has suggested “that the university has a responsibility to ensure that the size of a research unit does not outstrip the mentor's ability to maintain adequate supervision” (IOM, 1989a, p. 85). Others have noted that although it may be desirable to limit the number of trainees assigned to a senior investigator, there is insufficient information at this time to suggest that numbers alone significantly affect the quality of research supervision (IOM, 1989a, p. 33).

• Cite this Page National Academy of Sciences (US), National Academy of Engineering (US) and Institute of Medicine (US) Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research. Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process: Volume I. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1992. 2, Scientific Principles and Research Practices.
• PDF version of this title (1.2M)

In this Page

Recent activity.

• Scientific Principles and Research Practices - Responsible Science Scientific Principles and Research Practices - Responsible Science

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

1.3: The Nature of Science

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 108041

• Tara Jo Holmberg
• Northwestern Connecticut Community College

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

Unit 1.3 - The Nature of Science

• Please read and watch the following Learning Resources
• Reading the material for understanding, and taking notes during videos, will take approximately 2.5 hours.
• Optional Activities and Resources are embedded.
• Bolded terms are located at the end of the unit in the Glossary. There is also a Unit Summary at the end of the Unit.
• If on a mobile device, use the Contents menu at the top of the page OR the links at the bottom of the page.

Learning Objectives

• Use strategies of scientific inquiry to evaluate information, problems, and the validity of science;
• Model the scientific method;
• Compare inductive reasoning with deductive reasoning;
• Compare and contrast observational and descriptive studies;

The Process of Science

Biology is a science, but what exactly is science? What does the study of biology share with other scientific disciplines? Science (from the Latin scientia , meaning “knowledge”) can be defined as a process that uses evidence, logic, and creativity to discover and explain natural and physical phenomenon while avoiding bias. The scientific method is a method of research with defined steps that include experiments and careful observation.

The steps of the scientific method will be examined in detail later, but one of the most important aspects of this method is the testing of hypotheses by means of repeatable experiments. A hypothesis is a suggested explanation for an event, which can be tested. Although using the scientific method is inherent to science, it is inadequate in determining what science is. It is relatively easy to apply the scientific method to disciplines such as physics and chemistry, but for disciplines like paleontology and geology, the scientific method is adapted to the field of study.

These areas of study are still sciences, however. Consider paleontology—even though one cannot perform repeatable experiments, hypotheses may still be supported. For instance, a paleontologist can hypothesize that an ancient organism existed based on finding a fossil. Further hypotheses could be made about various characteristics of this fossil, and these hypotheses may be found to be correct or false through continued support or contradictions from other findings. A hypothesis may become a theory with time and evidence. A theory is a well-tested and confirmed explanation for observations or phenomena. Science may be better defined as fields of study that attempt to comprehend the physical and natural underpinnings of the universe.

This 10-minute video provides an overview of the process of science. Question after watching: What additional characteristics/steps has this video proposed is important in the scientific process that was not mentioned in the text above?

Natural Sciences

What would you expect to see in a museum of natural sciences? Frogs? Plants? Dinosaur skeletons? Exhibits about how the brain functions? A planetarium? Gems and minerals? Or, maybe all of the above? Science includes such diverse fields as astronomy, biology, computer sciences, geology, logic, physics, chemistry, and mathematics (Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\)). However, those fields of science related to the physical world and its phenomena and processes are considered natural sciences . Thus, a museum of natural sciences might contain any of the items listed above.

There is no complete agreement when it comes to defining what the natural sciences include, however. For some experts, the natural sciences are astronomy, biology, chemistry, earth science, and physics. Other scholars choose to divide natural sciences into life sciences , which study living things and include biology, and physical sciences , which study nonliving matter and include astronomy, geology, physics, and chemistry. Some disciplines such as biophysics and biochemistry build on both life and physical sciences and are interdisciplinary . Natural sciences often rely on the use of quantitative , or numeric, data although some may use qualitative , or non-numeric, data to support findings.

Not surprisingly, the natural science of biology has many branches or subdisciplines . Cell biologists study cell structure and function, while biologists who study anatomy investigate the structure of an entire organism. Those biologists studying physiology, however, focus on the internal functioning of an organism. Some areas of biology focus on only particular types of living things. For example, botanists explore plants, while zoologists specialize in animals.

This 5-minute video provides the purpose of the scientific method. Question after watching: Charles Molnar describes many ways in which human biases can influence how we observe or interpret the world around us. What steps do scientists put in place to try to remove these human biases from the process of learning about the world so that the final findings are as objective as possible?

History of Biological Science

Although modern biology is a relatively recent development, sciences related to and included within it have been studied since ancient times. Natural philosophy was studied as early as the ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia, Egypt, the Indian subcontinent, and China. However, the origins of modern biology and its approach to the study of nature are most often traced back to ancient Greece. (Biology is derived from the Greek word "bio" meaning "life" and the suffix "ology" meaning "study of.")

The scientific method was used in ancient times, but it was first documented by England’s Sir Francis Bacon (1561–1626), who set up the first methodology for scientific inquiry. The scientific method is not exclusively used by biologists but can be applied to almost all fields of study as a logical, rational problem-solving method. Natural history observations and advances in microscopy have also had a profound impact on biological thinking. In the early 19th century, a number of biologists pointed to the central importance of the cell and in 1838, Schleiden and Schwann began promoting the now universal ideas of the cell theory. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck was the first to present a coherent theory of evolution, although it was the British naturalist Charles Darwin who spread the theory of natural selection throughout the scientific community. In 1953, the discovery of the double-helical structure of DNA marked the transition to the era of molecular genetics.

Learn about Karl Popper and falsifiable hypotheses in this 11-minute video. Question after watching: How does the idea of falsification change how you may have learned about science in the past?

Scientific Reasoning

One thing is common to all forms of science: an ultimate goal “to know.” Curiosity and inquiry are the driving forces for the development of science. Scientists seek to understand the world and the way it operates. To do this, they use two methods of logical thinking: inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning (Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\)).

Inductive reasoning is a form of logical thinking that uses related observations to arrive at a general conclusion. This type of reasoning is common in descriptive science. A life scientist such as a biologist makes observations and records them. These data can be qualitative or quantitative, and the raw data can be supplemented with drawings, pictures, photos, or videos. From many observations, the scientist can infer conclusions (inductions) based on evidence. Inductive reasoning involves formulating generalizations inferred from careful observation and the analysis of a large amount of data. Brain studies provide an example. In this type of research, many live brains are observed while people are doing a specific activity, such as viewing images of food. The part of the brain that “lights up” during this activity is then predicted to be the part controlling the response to the selected stimulus, in this case, images of food. Then, researchers can stimulate that part of the brain to see if similar responses result.

Deductive reasoning or deduction is the type of logic used in hypothesis-based science. In deductive reason, the pattern of thinking moves in the opposite direction as compared to inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is a form of logical thinking that uses a general principle or law to forecast specific results. From those general principles, a scientist can extrapolate and predict the specific results that would be valid as long as the general principles are valid. Studies in climate change can illustrate this type of reasoning. For example, scientists may predict that if the climate becomes warmer in a particular region, then the distribution of plants and animals should change. These predictions have been made and tested, and many such changes have been found, such as the modification of arable areas for agriculture, with change based on temperature averages.

Optional Activity \(\PageIndex{1}\)

Decide if each of the following is an example of inductive or deductive reasoning.

• All flying birds and insects have wings. Birds and insects flap their wings as they move through the air. Therefore, wings enable flight.
• Insects generally survive mild winters better than harsh ones. Therefore, insect pests will become more problematic if global temperatures increase.
• Chromosomes, the carriers of DNA, separate into daughter cells during cell division. Therefore, DNA is the genetic material.
• Animals as diverse as humans, insects, and wolves all exhibit social behavior. Therefore, social behavior must have an evolutionary advantage.

1: inductive; 2: deductive; 3: deductive; 4: inductive.

Many students confuse deductive reasoning with inductive reasoning and vice versa. Learn the difference in this 3-minute video. Question after watching: Reflect on incidents/events in your life where you applied deductive and inductive reasoning. Describe them and why they are instances of inductive and deductive reasoning.

Both types of logical thinking are related to the two main pathways of scientific study: descriptive science and hypothesis-based science . Descriptive (or discovery) science , which is usually inductive, aims to observe, explore, and discover. H ypothesis-based science , which is usually deductive, begins with a specific question or problem and a potential answer or solution that can be tested. In hypothesis-based science, specific results are predicted from a general premise.

The boundary between descriptive science and hypothesis-based science is often blurred, and most scientific endeavors combine both approaches. Inductive and deductive reasoning are often used in tandem to advance scientific knowledge. The fuzzy boundary becomes apparent when thinking about how easily observation can lead to specific questions. For example, a gentleman in the 1940s observed that the burr seeds that stuck to his clothes and his dog’s fur had a tiny hook structure. On closer inspection, he discovered that the burrs’ gripping device was more reliable than a zipper. He eventually developed a company and produced the hook-and-loop fastener popularly known today as Velcro. Descriptive science and hypothesis-based science are in continuous dialogue.

The Scientific Method

Biologists study the living world by posing questions about it and seeking science-based responses. This approach is common to other sciences as well and is often referred to as the scientific method. The scientific process typically starts with an observation (often a problem to be solved) that leads to a question. Let’s think about a simple problem that starts with an observation and apply the scientific method to solve the problem. One Monday morning, a student arrives at class and quickly discovers that the classroom is too warm. That is an observation that also describes a problem: the classroom is too warm. The student then asks a question: “Why is the classroom so warm?”

Learn about the 5 criteria that a testable question should meet in this 7.5-minute video.

Optional Activity \(\PageIndex{2}\)

Read the following questions. Does the statement lend itself to investigation using the scientific method? In other words, is the hypothesis falsifiable (can be proven false)?

• Is macaroni and cheese tastier than broccoli soup?
• Are hummingbirds attracted to the color red?
• Is the moon made out of green cheese?
• Is plagiarism dishonest?
• Questions 1 and 2 are subjective and cannot be disproven using scientific method. Questions 3 and 4 can be tested using scientific method.
• Questions 3 and 4 are subjective and cannot be disproven using scientific method. Questions 1 and 2 can be tested using scientific method.
• Questions 1 and 3 are subjective and cannot be disproven using scientific method. Questions 2 and 4 can be tested using scientific method.
• Questions 1 and 4 are subjective and cannot be disproven using scientific method. Questions 2 and 3 can be tested using scientific method.

d. Questions 1 and 4 are subjective and cannot be disproven using scientific method. Questions 2 and 3 can be tested using scientific method.

Proposing a Hypothesis

Recall that a hypothesis is a suggested explanation that can be tested. To solve a problem, several hypotheses may be proposed. For example, one hypothesis might be, “The classroom is warm because no one turned on the air conditioning.” But there could be other responses to the question, and therefore other hypotheses may be proposed. A second hypothesis might be, “The classroom is warm because there is a power failure, and so the air conditioning doesn’t work.”

Once a hypothesis has been selected, the student can make a prediction . A prediction is similar to a hypothesis but it typically has the format “If . . . then . . . .” For example, the prediction for the first hypothesis might be, “ If the student turns on the air conditioning, then the classroom will no longer be too warm.”

In this 7-minute video, learn the difference between a fact, a theory, a hypothesis, and a scientific law. Question BEFORE and AFTER watching: How would you define hypothesis and theory?

Testing a Hypothesis

A valid hypothesis must be testable. It should also be falsifiable , meaning that it can be disproven by experimental results. Importantly, science does not claim to “prove” anything because scientific understandings are always subject to modification with further information. This step—openness to disproving ideas—is what distinguishes sciences from non-sciences. The presence of the supernatural, for instance, is neither testable nor falsifiable. To test a hypothesis, a researcher will conduct one or more experiments designed to eliminate one or more of the hypotheses. Each experiment will have one or more variables and one or more controls. A variable is any part of the experiment that can vary or change during the experiment. The control group contains all of the same conditions experimental group EXCEPT for the variable being tested. Therefore, if the results of the experimental group differ from the control group, the difference must be due to the manipulation, rather than some outside factor. Identify the variables and controls in the examples from the section above.

Revisit the hypotheses from the section above:

• The classroom is warm because no one turned on the air conditioning.
• The classroom is warm because there is a power failure, and so the air conditioning doesn’t work.

To test the first hypothesis, the student would find out if the air conditioning is on. If the air conditioning is turned on but does not work, there should be another reason, and this hypothesis should be rejected. To test the second hypothesis, the student could check if the lights in the classroom are functional. If so, there is no power failure and this hypothesis should be rejected. Each hypothesis should be tested by carrying out appropriate experiments. Be aware that rejecting one hypothesis does not determine whether or not the other hypotheses can be accepted; it simply eliminates one hypothesis that is not valid (Figure \(\PageIndex{4}\)). Using the scientific method, the hypotheses that are inconsistent with experimental data are rejected.

While this “warm classroom” example is based on observational results, other hypotheses and experiments might have clearer controls. For instance, a student might attend class on Monday and realize she had difficulty concentrating on the lecture. One observation to explain this occurrence might be, “When I eat breakfast before class, I am better able to pay attention.” The student could then design an experiment with a control to test this hypothesis, including keeping all details of their morning the same but eating breakfast one day versus another to see how their attention holds in class.

The scientific method may seem too rigid and structured (Figure \(\PageIndex{3}\)). It is important to keep in mind that, although scientists often follow this sequence, there is flexibility. In fact, the scientific process is much more complex in practice. Sometimes an experiment leads to conclusions that favor a change in approach; often, an experiment brings entirely new scientific questions to the puzzle. Many times, science does not operate in a linear fashion; instead, scientists continually draw inferences and make generalizations, finding patterns as their research proceeds. Scientific reasoning is more complex than the scientific method alone suggests. Notice, too, that the scientific method can be applied to solving problems that aren’t necessarily scientific in nature.

In this 5-minute video, explore how scientists designed and implemented a sampling and data collection plan to answer scientific questions. Question after watching: What are important things to consider when selecting samples?

In this 6-minute video, explore why data is critically important to the scientific process, what makes good data, and how to use data correctly. Question after watching: What is the distinction and/or relationship between variables and data?

Optional Activity \(\PageIndex{3}\)

In the example below, the scientific method is used to solve an everyday problem. Order the scientific method steps (numbered items) with the process of solving the everyday problem (lettered items). Based on the results of the experiment, is the hypothesis correct? If it is incorrect, propose some alternative hypotheses.

• Observation
• Hypothesis (answer)
• There is something wrong with the electrical outlet.
• If something is wrong with the outlet, my coffeemaker also won’t work when plugged into it.
• My toaster doesn’t toast my bread.
• I plug my coffee maker into the outlet.
• My coffeemaker works.
• Why doesn’t my toaster work?

1: C; 2: F; 3: A; 4: B; 5: D; 6: E. The original hypothesis is incorrect, as the coffeemaker works when plugged into the outlet. Alternative hypotheses include that the toaster might be broken or that the toaster wasn't turned on.

In this 6-minute video, the critical importance of mathematical models to the scientific process is explored. Question: Why is modeling such a fundamentally important tool?

Discover why collaboration among scientists with different backgrounds and expertise is essential for strong science investigations in this 6.5-minute video. Question after watching: The research expedition includes several research teams. Why is that?

Optional Resource

Find a more realistic, but more complex, diagram of the scientific method from the University of California - Berkeley here: https://undsci.berkeley.edu/lessons/pdfs/complex_flow_handout.pdf

Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice that is presented as scientific but does not adhere to the standards and methods of science. True science is based on repeated evidence-gathering and testing of falsifiable hypotheses. Pseudoscience does not adhere to these criteria. Pseudoscience is often known as fringe or alternative science. It usually lacks the carefully-controlled and thoughtfully-interpreted experiments which provide the foundation of the natural sciences and which contribute to their advancement. In addition to phrenology, some other examples of pseudoscience include astrology, extrasensory perception (ESP), reflexology, reincarnation, and Scientology

Characteristics of Pseudoscience

Whether a field is actually science or just pseudoscience is not always clear. However, pseudoscience generally exhibits certain common characteristics. Indicators of pseudoscience include:

• The use of vague, exaggerated, or untestable claims: Many claims made by pseudoscience cannot be tested with evidence. As a result, they cannot be falsified, even if they are not true.
• An over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation: Any incident that appears to justify a pseudoscience claim is treated as proof of the claim. Claims are assumed true until proven otherwise, and the burden of disproof is placed on skeptics of the claim.
• A lack of openness to testing by other experts: Practitioners of pseudoscience avoid subjecting their ideas to peer review. They may refuse to share their data and justify the need for secrecy with claims of proprietary or privacy.
• An absence of progress in advancing knowledge: In pseudoscience, ideas are not subjected to repeated testing followed by rejection or refinement, as hypotheses are in true science. Ideas in pseudoscience may remain unchanged for hundreds — or even thousands — of years. In fact, the older an idea is, the more it tends to be trusted in pseudoscience.
• Personalization of issues: Proponents of pseudoscience adopt beliefs that have little or no rational basis, so they may try to confirm their beliefs by treating critics as enemies. Instead of arguing to support their own beliefs, they attack the motives and character of their critics.
• The use of misleading language: Followers of pseudoscience may use scientific-sounding terms to make their ideas sound more convincing. For example, they may use the formal name dihydrogen monoxide to refer to plain old water.

This 3.5-minute video reviews what is considered pseudoscience. Question after watching: What are some instances of pseudoscience that you have seen or heard recently?

Persistence of Pseudoscience

Despite failing to meet scientific standards, many pseudosciences survive. Some pseudosciences remain very popular with large numbers of believers. A good example is astrology.

Astrology claims to study the movements and relative positions of celestial objects as a means for divining information about human affairs and terrestrial events. Many ancient cultures attached importance to astronomical events, and some developed elaborate systems for predicting terrestrial events from celestial observations. Throughout most of its history in the West, astrology was actually considered a scholarly tradition and was common in academic circles. With the advent of modern Western sciences and the process of scientific inquiry, however, astrology was called into question. It was challenged on both theoretical and experimental grounds. Eventually, astrology was shown to have no scientific validity or explanatory power.

Today, astrology is considered a pseudoscience, yet it continues to have many devotees. Many people know their astrological sign, and some are familiar with the supposed personality traits associated with their "sign". Astrological readings and horoscopes are readily available online and in print media, and a lot of people read them, even if only occasionally. Some believe that astrology is scientific. Studies suggest that the persistent popularity of pseudosciences such as astrology is due to misunderstandings of scientific principles and methodology. Alternatively, some are not convinced by scientific arguments that go against their personal beliefs and this, in the end, can do real harm to themselves or others.

Dangers of Pseudoscience

Belief in astrology is unlikely to cause a person harm, but belief in some other pseudosciences might — especially in healthcare-related areas. Treatments that seem scientific but are not may be ineffective, expensive, and even dangerous to patients. Seeking out pseudoscientific treatments may also delay or preclude patients from seeking scientifically-based medical treatments that have been tested and found safe and effective. In short, following pseudoscience instead of established health care practices may be harmful.

Scientific Hoaxes, Frauds, and Fallacies

Pseudoscience is not the only way that science may be misused. Scientific hoaxes, frauds, and fallacies may misdirect the pursuit of science, put patients at risk, or mislead and confuse the public. An example of each of these misuses of science and its negative effects is described below.

The Vaccine-Autism Fraud

While it is not true, you may have heard that certain vaccines put the health of young children at risk. This persistent idea is not supported by scientific evidence or accepted by the vast majority of experts in the field. It stems largely from an elaborate medical research fraud that was reported in a 1998 article published in the respected British medical journal, The Lancet. The main author of the article was a British physician named Andrew Wakefield. In the article, Wakefield and his colleagues described case histories of only 12 children, most of whom were reported to have developed autism soon after the administration of the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine.

There were a whole host of problems with this study, including falsification of research, ethics violations, and experimental design problems. The paper has been retracted (a very big deal in the science community), most of the co-authors have retracted their authorship, and Wakefield lost his medical license. It also later emerged that Wakefield had received research funding from a group of people who were suing vaccine manufacturers. Thousands of follow-up studies have failed to show any association between the MMR vaccine and autism. Unfortunately, by then, the damage had already been done. Parents afraid that their children would develop autism had refrained from having them vaccinated. British MMR vaccination rates fell from nearly 100 percent to 80 percent in the years following the study. The consensus of medical experts today is that Wakefield’s fraud put hundreds of thousands of children at risk because of the lower vaccination rates and also diverted research efforts and funding away from finding the true cause of autism.

Correlation-Causation Fallacy

Many statistical tests used in scientific research calculate correlations between variables. Correlation refers to how closely related two data sets are, which may be a useful starting point for further investigation. Correlation, however, is also one of the most misused types of evidence, primarily because of the logical fallacy that correlation implies causation. In reality, just because two variables are correlated does not necessarily mean that either variable causes the other.

A few simple examples, illustrated by the graphs below, can be used to demonstrate the correlation-causation fallacy. Assume a study found that both per capita consumption of mozzarella cheese and the number of Civil Engineering doctorates awarded are correlated; that is, rates of both events increase together Figure \(\PageIndex{4}\). If correlation really did imply causation, then you could conclude from the second example that the increase in age of Miss America causes an increase in murders of a specific type or vice versa Figure \(\PageIndex{5}\).

Watch this 4-minute video to learn how to spot a misleading graph. Question after watching: How can graphs present an opinion?

HRT and CHD

An actual example of the correlation-causation fallacy occurred during the latter half of the 20th century. Numerous studies showed that women taking hormone replacement therapy (HRT) to treat menopausal symptoms also had a lower-than-average incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD). This correlation was misinterpreted as evidence that HRT protects women against CHD. Subsequent studies that controlled other factors related to CHD disproved this presumed causal connection. The studies found that women taking HRT were more likely to come from higher socio-economic groups, with better-than-average diets and exercise regimens. Rather than HRT causing lower CHD incidence, these studies concluded that HRT and lower CHD were both effects of higher socio-economic status and related lifestyle factors.

How statistics can be misleading Question after watching: What types of motivation could be at play when people or organizations present statistics?

Finally, read through this “Rough Guide to Spotting Bad Science” infographic from Compound Interest:

Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process: Volume I (1992)

Chapter: 2 scientific principles and research practices, scientific principles and research practices.

Until the past decade, scientists, research institutions, and government agencies relied solely on a system of self-regulation based on shared ethical principles and generally accepted research practices to ensure integrity in the research process. Among the very basic principles that guide scientists, as well as many other scholars, are those expressed as respect for the integrity of knowledge, collegiality, honesty, objectivity, and openness. These principles are at work in the fundamental elements of the scientific method, such as formulating a hypothesis, designing an experiment to test the hypothesis, and collecting and interpreting data. In addition, more particular principles characteristic of specific scientific disciplines influence the methods of observation; the acquisition, storage, management, and sharing of data; the communication of scientific knowledge and information; and the training of younger scientists. 1 How these principles are applied varies considerably among the several scientific disciplines, different research organizations, and individual investigators.

The basic and particular principles that guide scientific research practices exist primarily in an unwritten code of ethics. Although some have proposed that these principles should be written down and formalized, 2 the principles and traditions of science are, for the most part, conveyed to successive generations of scientists through example, discussion, and informal education. As was pointed out in an early Academy report on responsible conduct of research in the

health sciences, “a variety of informal and formal practices and procedures currently exist in the academic research environment to assure and maintain the high quality of research conduct” (IOM, 1989a, p. 18).

Physicist Richard Feynman invoked the informal approach to communicating the basic principles of science in his 1974 commencement address at the California Institute of Technology (Feynman, 1985):

[There is an] idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school—we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it; other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can—if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong—to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. In summary, the idea is to try to give all the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution, not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another. (pp. 311-312)

Many scholars have noted the implicit nature and informal character of the processes that often guide scientific research practices and inference. 3 Research in well-established fields of scientific knowledge, guided by commonly accepted theoretical paradigms and experimental methods, involves few disagreements about what is recognized as sound scientific evidence. Even in a revolutionary scientific field like molecular biology, students and trainees have learned the basic principles governing judgments made in such standardized procedures as cloning a new gene and determining its sequence.

In evaluating practices that guide research endeavors, it is important to consider the individual character of scientific fields. Research fields that yield highly replicable results, such as ordinary organic chemical structures, are quite different from fields such as cellular immunology, which are in a much earlier stage of development and accumulate much erroneous or uninterpretable material before the pieces fit together coherently. When a research field is too new or too fragmented to support consensual paradigms or established methods, different scientific practices can emerge.

A well-established discipline can also experience profound changes during periods of new conceptual insights. In these moments, when scientists must cope with shifting concepts, the matter of what counts as scientific evidence can be subject to dispute. Historian Jan Sapp has described the complex interplay between theory and observation that characterizes the operation of scientific judgment in the selection of research data during revolutionary periods of paradigmatic shift (Sapp, 1990, p. 113):

What “liberties” scientists are allowed in selecting positive data and omitting conflicting or “messy” data from their reports is not defined by any timeless method. It is a matter of negotiation. It is learned, acquired socially; scientists make judgments about what fellow scientists might expect in order to be convincing. What counts as good evidence may be more or less well-defined after a new discipline or specialty is formed; however, at revolutionary stages in science, when new theories and techniques are being put forward, when standards have yet to be negotiated, scientists are less certain as to what others may require of them to be deemed competent and convincing.

Explicit statements of the values and traditions that guide research practice have evolved through the disciplines and have been given in textbooks on scientific methodologies. 4 In the past few decades, many scientific and engineering societies representing individual disciplines have also adopted codes of ethics (see Volume II of this report for examples), 5 and more recently, a few research institutions have developed guidelines for the conduct of research (see Chapter 6 ).

But the responsibilities of the research community and research institutions in assuring individual compliance with scientific principles, traditions, and codes of ethics are not well defined. In recent

years, the absence of formal statements by research institutions of the principles that should guide research conducted by their members has prompted criticism that scientists and their institutions lack a clearly identifiable means to ensure the integrity of the research process.

FACTORS AFFECTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF RESEARCH PRACTICES

In all of science, but with unequal emphasis in the several disciplines, inquiry proceeds based on observation and experimentation, the exercising of informed judgment, and the development of theory. Research practices are influenced by a variety of factors, including:

The general norms of science;

The nature of particular scientific disciplines and the traditions of organizing a specific body of scientific knowledge;

The example of individual scientists, particularly those who hold positions of authority or respect based on scientific achievements;

The policies and procedures of research institutions and funding agencies; and

Socially determined expectations.

The first three factors have been important in the evolution of modern science. The latter two have acquired more importance in recent times.

Norms of Science

As members of a professional group, scientists share a set of common values, aspirations, training, and work experiences. 6 Scientists are distinguished from other groups by their beliefs about the kinds of relationships that should exist among them, about the obligations incurred by members of their profession, and about their role in society. A set of general norms are imbedded in the methods and the disciplines of science that guide individual, scientists in the organization and performance of their research efforts and that also provide a basis for nonscientists to understand and evaluate the performance of scientists.

But there is uncertainty about the extent to which individual scientists adhere to such norms. Most social scientists conclude that all behavior is influenced to some degree by norms that reflect socially or morally supported patterns of preference when alternative courses of action are possible. However, perfect conformity with any rele-

vant set of norms is always lacking for a variety of reasons: the existence of competing norms, constraints, and obstacles in organizational or group settings, and personality factors. The strength of these influences, and the circumstances that may affect them, are not well understood.

In a classic statement of the importance of scientific norms, Robert Merton specified four norms as essential for the effective functioning of science: communism (by which Merton meant the communal sharing of ideas and findings), universalism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism (Merton, 1973). Neither Merton nor other sociologists of science have provided solid empirical evidence for the degree of influence of these norms in a representative sample of scientists. In opposition to Merton, a British sociologist of science, Michael Mulkay, has argued that these norms are “ideological” covers for self-interested behavior that reflects status and politics (Mulkay, 1975). And the British physicist and sociologist of science John Ziman, in an article synthesizing critiques of Merton's formulation, has specified a set of structural factors in the bureaucratic and corporate research environment that impede the realization of that particular set of norms: the proprietary nature of research, the local importance and funding of research, the authoritarian role of the research manager, commissioned research, and the required expertise in understanding how to use modern instruments (Ziman, 1990).

It is clear that the specific influence of norms on the development of scientific research practices is simply not known and that further study of key determinants is required, both theoretically and empirically. Commonsense views, ideologies, and anecdotes will not support a conclusive appraisal.

Individual Scientific Disciplines

Science comprises individual disciplines that reflect historical developments and the organization of natural and social phenomena for study. Social scientists may have methods for recording research data that differ from the methods of biologists, and scientists who depend on complex instrumentation may have authorship practices different from those of scientists who work in small groups or carry out field studies. Even within a discipline, experimentalists engage in research practices that differ from the procedures followed by theorists.

Disciplines are the “building blocks of science,” and they “designate the theories, problems, procedures, and solutions that are prescribed, proscribed, permitted, and preferred” (Zuckerman, 1988a,

p. 520). The disciplines have traditionally provided the vital connections between scientific knowledge and its social organization. Scientific societies and scientific journals, some of which have tens of thousands of members and readers, and the peer review processes used by journals and research sponsors are visible forms of the social organization of the disciplines.

The power of the disciplines to shape research practices and standards is derived from their ability to provide a common frame of reference in evaluating the significance of new discoveries and theories in science. It is the members of a discipline, for example, who determine what is “good biology” or “good physics” by examining the implications of new research results. The disciplines' abilities to influence research standards are affected by the subjective quality of peer review and the extent to which factors other than disciplinary quality may affect judgments about scientific achievements. Disciplinary departments rely primarily on informal social and professional controls to promote responsible behavior and to penalize deviant behavior. These controls, such as social ostracism, the denial of letters of support for future employment, and the withholding of research resources, can deter and penalize unprofessional behavior within research institutions. 7

Many scientific societies representing individual disciplines have adopted explicit standards in the form of codes of ethics or guidelines governing, for example, the editorial practices of their journals and other publications. 8 Many societies have also established procedures for enforcing their standards. In the past decade, the societies' codes of ethics—which historically have been exhortations to uphold high standards of professional behavior —have incorporated specific guidelines relevant to authorship practices, data management, training and mentoring, conflict of interest, reporting research findings, treatment of confidential or proprietary information, and addressing error or misconduct.

The Role of Individual Scientists and Research Teams

The methods by which individual scientists and students are socialized in the principles and traditions of science are poorly understood. The principles of science and the practices of the disciplines are transmitted by scientists in classroom settings and, perhaps more importantly, in research groups and teams. The social setting of the research group is a strong and valuable characteristic of American science and education. The dynamics of research groups can foster —or inhibit—innovation, creativity, education, and collaboration.

One author of a historical study of research groups in the chemical and biochemical sciences has observed that the laboratory director or group leader is the primary determinant of a group's practices (Fruton, 1990). Individuals in positions of authority are visible and are also influential in determining funding and other support for the career paths of their associates and students. Research directors and department chairs, by virtue of personal example, thus can reinforce, or weaken, the power of disciplinary standards and scientific norms to affect research practices.

To the extent that the behavior of senior scientists conforms with general expectations for appropriate scientific and disciplinary practice, the research system is coherent and mutually reinforcing. When the behavior of research directors or department chairs diverges from expectations for good practice, however, the expected norms of science become ambiguous, and their effects are thus weakened. Thus personal example and the perceived behavior of role models and leaders in the research community can be powerful stimuli in shaping the research practices of colleagues, associates, and students.

The role of individuals in influencing research practices can vary by research field, institution, or time. The standards and expectations for behavior exemplified by scientists who are highly regarded for their technical competence or creative insight may have greater influence than the standards of others. Individual and group behaviors may also be more influential in times of uncertainty and change in science, especially when new scientific theories, paradigms, or institutional relationships are being established.

Institutional Policies

Universities, independent institutes, and government and industrial research organizations create the environment in which research is done. As the recipients of federal funds and the institutional sponsors of research activities, administrative officers must comply with regulatory and legal requirements that accompany public support. They are required, for example, “to foster a research environment that discourages misconduct in all research and that deals forthrightly with possible misconduct” (DHHS, 1989a, p. 32451).

Academic institutions traditionally have relied on their faculty to ensure that appropriate scientific and disciplinary standards are maintained. A few universities and other research institutions have also adopted policies or guidelines to clarify the principles that their members are expected to observe in the conduct of scientific research. 9 In addition, as a result of several highly publicized incidents of miscon-

duct in science and the subsequent enactment of governmental regulations, most major research institutions have now adopted policies and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in science.

Institutional policies governing research practices can have a powerful effect on research practices if they are commensurate with the norms that apply to a wide spectrum of research investigators. In particular, the process of adopting and implementing strong institutional policies can sensitize the members of those institutions to the potential for ethical problems in their work. Institutional policies can establish explicit standards that institutional officers then have the power to enforce with sanctions and penalties.

Institutional policies are limited, however, in their ability to specify the details of every problematic situation, and they can weaken or displace individual professional judgment in such situations. Currently, academic institutions have very few formal policies and programs in specific areas such as authorship, communication and publication, and training and supervision.

Government Regulations and Policies

Government agencies have developed specific rules and procedures that directly affect research practices in areas such as laboratory safety, the treatment of human and animal research subjects, and the use of toxic or potentially hazardous substances in research.

But policies and procedures adopted by some government research agencies to address misconduct in science (see Chapter 5 ) represent a significant new regulatory development in the relationships between research institutions and government sponsors. The standards and criteria used to monitor institutional compliance with an increasing number of government regulations and policies affecting research practices have been a source of significant disagreement and tension within the research community.

In recent years, some government research agencies have also adopted policies and procedures for the treatment of research data and materials in their extramural research programs. For example, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has implemented a data-sharing policy through program management actions, including proposal review and award negotiations and conditions. The NSF policy acknowledges that grantee institutions will “keep principal rights to intellectual property conceived under NSF sponsorship” to encourage appropriate commercialization of the results of research (NSF, 1989b, p. 1). However, the NSF policy emphasizes “that retention of such rights does not reduce the responsibility of researchers and in-

stitutions to make results and supporting materials openly accessible ” (p. 1).

In seeking to foster data sharing under federal grant awards, the government relies extensively on the scientific traditions of openness and sharing. Research agency officials have observed candidly that if the vast majority of scientists were not so committed to openness and dissemination, government policy might require more aggressive action. But the principles that have traditionally characterized scientific inquiry can be difficult to maintain. For example, NSF staff have commented, “Unless we can arrange real returns or incentives for the original investigator, either in financial support or in professional recognition, another researcher's request for sharing is likely to present itself as ‘hassle'—an unwelcome nuisance and diversion. Therefore, we should hardly be surprised if researchers display some reluctance to share in practice, however much they may declare and genuinely feel devotion to the ideal of open scientific communication ” (NSF, 1989a, p. 4).

Social Attitudes and Expectations

Research scientists are part of a larger human society that has recently experienced profound changes in attitudes about ethics, morality, and accountability in business, the professions, and government. These attitudes have included greater skepticism of the authority of experts and broader expectations about the need for visible mechanisms to assure proper research practices, especially in areas that affect the public welfare. Social attitudes are also having a more direct influence on research practices as science achieves a more prominent and public role in society. In particular, concern about waste, fraud, and abuse involving government funds has emerged as a factor that now directly influences the practices of the research community.

Varying historical and conceptual perspectives also can affect expectations about standards of research practice. For example, some journalists have criticized several prominent scientists, such as Mendel, Newton, and Millikan, because they “cut corners in order to make their theories prevail” (Broad and Wade, 1982, p. 35). The criticism suggests that all scientists at all times, in all phases of their work, should be bound by identical standards.

Yet historical studies of the social context in which scientific knowledge has been attained suggest that modern criticism of early scientific work often imposes contemporary standards of objectivity and empiricism that have in fact been developed in an evolutionary manner. 10 Holton has argued, for example, that in selecting data for

publication, Millikan exercised creative insight in excluding unreliable data resulting from experimental error. But such practices, by today 's standards, would not be acceptable without reporting the justification for omission of recorded data.

In the early stages of pioneering studies, particularly when fundamental hypotheses are subject to change, scientists must be free to use creative judgment in deciding which data are truly significant. In such moments, the standards of proof may be quite different from those that apply at stages when confirmation and consensus are sought from peers. Scientists must consistently guard against self-deception, however, particularly when theoretical prejudices tend to overwhelm the skepticism and objectivity basic to experimental practices.

In discussing “the theory-ladenness of observations,” Sapp (1990) observed the fundamental paradox that can exist in determining the “appropriateness” of data selection in certain experiments done in the past: scientists often craft their experiments so that the scientific problems and research subjects conform closely with the theory that they expect to verify or refute. Thus, in some cases, their observations may come closer to theoretical expectations than what might be statistically proper.

This source of bias may be acceptable when it is influenced by scientific insight and judgment. But political, financial, or other sources of bias can corrupt the process of data selection. In situations where both kinds of influence exist, it is particularly important for scientists to be forthcoming about possible sources of bias in the interpretation of research results. The coupling of science to other social purposes in fostering economic growth and commercial technology requires renewed vigilance to maintain acceptable standards for disclosure and control of financial or competitive conflicts of interest and bias in the research environment. The failure to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate sources of bias in research practices can lead to erosion of public trust in the autonomy of the research enterprise.

RESEARCH PRACTICES

In reviewing modern research practices for a range of disciplines, and analyzing factors that could affect the integrity of the research process, the panel focused on the following four areas:

Data handling—acquisition, management, and storage;

Communication and publication;

Correction of errors; and

Research training and mentorship.

Commonly understood practices operate in each area to promote responsible research conduct; nevertheless, some questionable research practices also occur. Some research institutions, scientific societies, and journals have established policies to discourage questionable practices, but there is not yet a consensus on how to treat violations of these policies. 11 Furthermore, there is concern that some questionable practices may be encouraged or stimulated by other institutional factors. For example, promotion or appointment policies that stress quantity rather than the quality of publications as a measure of productivity could contribute to questionable practices.

Data Handling

Acquisition and management.

Scientific experiments and measurements are transformed into research data. The term “research data” applies to many different forms of scientific information, including raw numbers and field notes, machine tapes and notebooks, edited and categorized observations, interpretations and analyses, derived reagents and vectors, and tables, charts, slides, and photographs.

Research data are the basis for reporting discoveries and experimental results. Scientists traditionally describe the methods used for an experiment, along with appropriate calibrations, instrument types, the number of repeated measurements, and particular conditions that may have led to the omission of some datain the reported version. Standard procedures, innovations for particular purposes, and judgments concerning the data are also reported. The general standard of practice is to provide information that is sufficiently complete so that another scientist can repeat or extend the experiment.

When a scientist communicates a set of results and a related piece of theory or interpretation in any form (at a meeting, in a journal article, or in a book), it is assumed that the research has been conducted as reported. It is a violation of the most fundamental aspect of the scientific research process to set forth measurements that have not, in fact, been performed (fabrication) or to ignore or change relevant data that contradict the reported findings (falsification).

On occasion what is actually proper research practice may be confused with misconduct in science. Thus, for example, applying scientific judgment to refine data and to remove spurious results places

special responsibility on the researcher to avoid misrepresentation of findings. Responsible practice requires that scientists disclose the basis for omitting or modifying data in their analyses of research results, especially when such omissions or modifications could alter the interpretation or significance of their work.

In the last decade, the methods by which research scientists handle, store, and provide access to research data have received increased scrutiny, owing to conflicts, over ownership, such as those described by Nelkin (1984); advances in the methods and technologies that are used to collect, retain, and share data; and the costs of data storage. More specific concerns have involved the profitability associated with the patenting of science-based results in some fields and the need to verify independently the accuracy of research results used in public or private decision making. In resolving competing claims, the interests of individual scientists and research institutions may not always coincide: researchers may be willing to exchange scientific data of possible economic significance without regard for financial or institutional implications, whereas their institutions may wish to establish intellectual property rights and obligations prior to any disclosure.

The general norms of science emphasize the principle of openness. Scientists are generally expected to exchange research data as well as unique research materials that are essential to the replication or extension of reported findings. The 1985 report Sharing Research Data concluded that the general principle of data sharing is widely accepted, especially in the behavioral and social sciences (NRC, 1985). The report catalogued the benefits of data sharing, including maintaining the integrity of the research process by providing independent opportunities for verification, refutation, or refinement of original results and data; promoting new research and the development and testing of new theories; and encouraging appropriate use of empirical data in policy formulation and evaluation. The same report examined obstacles to data sharing, which include the criticism or competition that might be stimulated by data sharing; technical barriers that may impede the exchange of computer-readable data; lack of documentation of data sets; and the considerable costs of documentation, duplication, and transfer of data.

The exchange of research data and reagents is ideally governed by principles of collegiality and reciprocity: scientists often distribute reagents with the hope that the recipient will reciprocate in the future, and some give materials out freely with no stipulations attached. 12 Scientists who repeatedly or flagrantly deviate from the tradition of sharing become known to their peers and may suffer

subtle forms of professional isolation. Such cases may be well known to senior research investigators, but they are not well documented.

Some scientists may share materials as part of a collaborative agreement in exchange for co-authorship on resulting publications. Some donors stipulate that the shared materials are not to be used for applications already being pursued by the donor's laboratory. Other stipulations include that the material not be passed on to third parties without prior authorization, that the material not be used for proprietary research, or that the donor receive prepublication copies of research publications derived from the material. In some instances, so-called materials transfer agreements are executed to specify the responsibilities of donor and recipient. As more academic research is being supported under proprietary agreements, researchers and institutions are experiencing the effects of these arrangements on research practices.

Governmental support for research studies may raise fundamental questions of ownership and rights of control, particularly when data are subsequently used in proprietary efforts, public policy decisions, or litigation. Some federal research agencies have adopted policies for data sharing to mitigate conflicts over issues of ownership and access (NIH, 1987; NSF, 1989b).

Many research investigators store primary data in the laboratories in which the data were initially derived, generally as electronic records or data sheets in laboratory notebooks. For most academic laboratories, local customary practice governs the storage (or discarding) of research data. Formal rules or guidelines concerning their disposition are rare.

Many laboratories customarily store primary data for a set period (often 3 to 5 years) after they are initially collected. Data that support publications are usually retained for a longer period than are those tangential to reported results. Some research laboratories serve as the proprietor of data and data books that are under the stewardship of the principal investigator. Others maintain that it is the responsibility of the individuals who collected the data to retain proprietorship, even if they leave the laboratory.

Concerns about misconduct in science have raised questions about the roles of research investigators and of institutions in maintaining and providing access to primary data. In some cases of alleged misconduct, the inability or unwillingness of an investigator to provide

primary data or witnesses to support published reports sometimes has constituted a presumption that the experiments were not conducted as reported. 13 Furthermore, there is disagreement about the responsibilities of investigators to provide access to raw data, particularly when the reported results have been challenged by others. Many scientists believe that access should be restricted to peers and colleagues, usually following publication of research results, to reduce external demands on the time of the investigator. Others have suggested that raw data supporting research reports should be accessible to any critic or competitor, at any time, especially if the research is conducted with public funds. This topic, in particular, could benefit from further research and systematic discussion to clarify the rights and responsibilities of research investigators, institutions, and sponsors.

Institutional policies have been developed to guide data storage practices in some fields, often stimulated by desires to support the patenting of scientific results and to provide documentation for resolving disputes over patent claims. Laboratories concerned with patents usually have very strict rules concerning data storage and note keeping, often requiring that notes be recorded in an indelible form and be countersigned by an authorized person each day. A few universities have also considered the creation of central storage repositories for all primary data collected by their research investigators. Some government research institutions and industrial research centers maintain such repositories to safeguard the record of research developments for scientific, historical, proprietary, and national security interests.

In the academic environment, however, centralized research records raise complex problems of ownership, control, and access. Centralized data storage is costly in terms of money and space, and it presents logistical problems of cataloguing and retrieving data. There have been suggestions that some types of scientific data should be incorporated into centralized computerized data banks, a portion of which could be subject to periodic auditing or certification. 14 But much investigator-initiated research is not suitable for random data audits because of the exploratory nature of basic or discovery research. 15

Some scientific journals now require that full data for research papers be deposited in a centralized data bank before final publication. Policies and practices differ, but in some fields support is growing for compulsory deposit to enhance researchers' access to supporting data.

Issues Related to Advances in Information Technology

Advances in electronic and other information technologies have raised new questions about the customs and practices that influence the storage, ownership, and exchange of electronic data and software. A number of special issues, not addressed by the panel, are associated with computer modeling, simulation, and other approaches that are becoming more prevalent in the research environment. Computer technology can enhance research collaboration; it can also create new impediments to data sharing resulting from increased costs, the need for specialized equipment, or liabilities or uncertainties about responsibilities for faulty data, software, or computer-generated models.

Advances in computer technology may assist in maintaining and preserving accurate records of research data. Such records could help resolve questions about the timing or accuracy of specific research findings, especially when a principal investigator is not available or is uncooperative in responding to such questions. In principle, properly managed information technologies, utilizing advances in nonerasable optical disk systems, might reinforce openness in scientific research and make primary data more transparent to collaborators and research managers. For example, the so-called WORM (write once, read many) systems provide a high-density digital storage medium that supplies an ineradicable audit trail and historical record for all entered information (Haas, 1991).

Advances in information technologies could thus provide an important benefit to research institutions that wish to emphasize greater access to and storage of primary research data. But the development of centralized information systems in the academic research environment raises difficult issues of ownership, control, and principle that reflect the decentralized character of university governance. Such systems are also a source of additional research expense, often borne by individual investigators. Moreover, if centralized systems are perceived by scientists as an inappropriate or ineffective form of management or oversight of individual research groups, they simply may not work in an academic environment.

Communication and Publication

Scientists communicate research results by a variety of formal and informal means. In earlier times, new findings and interpretations were communicated by letter, personal meeting, and publication. Today, computer networks and facsimile machines have sup-

plemented letters and telephones in facilitating rapid exchange of results. Scientific meetings routinely include poster sessions and press conferences as well as formal presentations. Although research publications continue to document research findings, the appearance of electronic publications and other information technologies heralds change. In addition, incidents of plagiarism, the increasing number of authors per article in selected fields, and the methods by which publications are assessed in determining appointments and promotions have all increased concerns about the traditions and practices that have guided communication and publication.

Journal publication, traditionally an important means of sharing information and perspectives among scientists, is also a principal means of establishing a record of achievement in science. Evaluation of the accomplishments of individual scientists often involves not only the numbers of articles that have resulted from a selected research effort, but also the particular journals in which the articles have appeared. Journal submission dates are often important in establishing priority and intellectual property claims.

Authorship of original research reports is an important indicator of accomplishment, priority, and prestige within the scientific community. Questions of authorship in science are intimately connected with issues of credit and responsibility. Authorship practices are guided by disciplinary traditions, customary practices within research groups, and professional and journal standards and policies. 16 There is general acceptance of the principle that each named author has made a significant intellectual contribution to the paper, even though there remains substantial disagreement over the types of contributions that are judged to be significant.

A general rule is that an author must have participated sufficiently in the work to take responsibility for its content and vouch for its validity. Some journals have adopted more specific guidelines, suggesting that credit for authorship be contingent on substantial participation in one or more of the following categories: (1) conception and design of the experiment, (2) execution of the experiment and collection and storage of the supporting data, (3) analysis and interpretation of the primary data, and (4) preparation and revision of the manuscript. The extent of participation in these four activities required for authorship varies across journals, disciplines, and research groups. 17

“Honorary,” “gift,” or other forms of noncontributing authorship

are problems with several dimensions. 18 Honorary authors reap an inflated list of publications incommensurate with their scientific contributions (Zen, 1988). Some scientists have requested or been given authorship as a form of recognition of their status or influence rather than their intellectual contribution. Some research leaders have a custom of including their own names in any paper issuing from their laboratory, although this practice is increasingly discouraged. Some students or junior staff encourage such “gift authorship” because they feel that the inclusion of prestigious names on their papers increases the chance of publication in well-known journals. In some cases, noncontributing authors have been listed without their consent, or even without their being told. In response to these practices, some journals now require all named authors to sign the letter that accompanies submission of the original article, to ensure that no author is named without consent.

“Specialized” authorship is another issue that has received increasing attention. In these cases, a co-author may claim responsibility for a specialized portion of the paper and may not even see or be able to defend the paper as a whole. 19 “Specialized” authorship may also result from demands that co-authorship be given as a condition of sharing a unique research reagent or selected data that do not constitute a major contribution—demands that many scientists believe are inappropriate. “Specialized” authorship may be appropriate in cross-disciplinary collaborations, in which each participant has made an important contribution that deserves recognition. However, the risks associated with the inabilities of co-authors to vouch for the integrity of an entire paper are great; scientists may unwittingly become associated with a discredited publication.

Another problem of lesser importance, except to the scientists involved, is the order of authors listed on a paper. The meaning of author order varies among and within disciplines. For example, in physics the ordering of authors is frequently alphabetical, whereas in the social sciences and other fields, the ordering reflects a descending order of contribution to the described research. Another practice, common in biology, is to list the senior author last.

Appropriate recognition for the contributions of junior investigators, postdoctoral fellows, and graduate students is sometimes a source of discontent and unease in the contemporary research environment. Junior researchers have raised concerns about treatment of their contributions when research papers are prepared and submitted, particularly if they are attempting to secure promotions or independent research funding or if they have left the original project. In some cases, well-meaning senior scientists may grant junior colleagues

undeserved authorship or placement as a means of enhancing the junior colleague's reputation. In others, significant contributions may not receive appropriate recognition.

Authorship practices are further complicated by large-scale projects, especially those that involve specialized contributions. Mission teams for space probes, oceanographic expeditions, and projects in high-energy physics, for example, all involve large numbers of senior scientists who depend on the long-term functioning of complex equipment. Some questions about communication and publication that arise from large science projects such as the Superconducting Super Collider include: Who decides when an experiment is ready to be published? How is the spokesperson for the experiment determined? Who determines who can give talks on the experiment? How should credit for technical or hardware contributions be acknowledged?

Apart from plagiarism, problems of authorship and credit allocation usually do not involve misconduct in science. Although some forms of “gift authorship,” in which a designated author made no identifiable contribution to a paper, may be viewed as instances of falsification, authorship disputes more commonly involve unresolved differences of judgment and style. Many research groups have found that the best method of resolving authorship questions is to agree on a designation of authors at the outset of the project. The negotiation and decision process provides initial recognition of each member's effort, and it may prevent misunderstandings that can arise during the course of the project when individuals may be in transition to new efforts or may become preoccupied with other matters.

Plagiarism. Plagiarism is using the ideas or words of another person without giving appropriate credit. Plagiarism includes the unacknowledged use of text and ideas from published work, as well as the misuse of privileged information obtained through confidential review of research proposals and manuscripts.

As described in Honor in Science, plagiarism can take many forms: at one extreme is the exact replication of another's writing without appropriate attribution (Sigma Xi, 1986). At the other is the more subtle “borrowing” of ideas, terms, or paraphrases, as described by Martin et al., “so that the result is a mosaic of other people's ideas and words, the writer's sole contribution being the cement to hold the pieces together.” 20 The importance of recognition for one's intellectual abilities in science demands high standards of accuracy and diligence in ensuring appropriate recognition for the work of others.

The misuse of privileged information may be less clear-cut because it does not involve published work. But the general principles

of the importance of giving credit to the accomplishments of others are the same. The use of ideas or information obtained from peer review is not acceptable because the reviewer is in a privileged position. Some organizations, such as the American Chemical Society, have adopted policies to address these concerns (ACS, 1986).

Additional Concerns. Other problems related to authorship include overspecialization, overemphasis on short-term projects, and the organization of research communication around the “least publishable unit.” In a research system that rewards quantity at the expense of quality and favors speed over attention to detail (the effects of “publish or perish”), scientists who wait until their research data are complete before releasing them for publication may be at a disadvantage. Some institutions, such as Harvard Medical School, have responded to these problems by limiting the number of publications reviewed for promotion. Others have placed greater emphasis on major contributions as the basis for evaluating research productivity.

As gatekeepers of scientific journals, editors are expected to use good judgment and fairness in selecting papers for publication. Although editors cannot be held responsible for the errors or inaccuracies of papers that may appear in their journals, editors have obligations to consider criticism and evidence that might contradict the claims of an author and to facilitate publication of critical letters, errata, or retractions. 21 Some institutions, including the National Library of Medicine and professional societies that represent editors of scientific journals, are exploring the development of standards relevant to these obligations (Bailar et al., 1990).

Should questions be raised about the integrity of a published work, the editor may request an author's institution to address the matter. Editors often request written assurances that research reported conforms to all appropriate guidelines involving human or animal subjects, materials of human origin, or recombinant DNA.

In theory, editors set standards of authorship for their journals. In practice, scientists in the specialty do. Editors may specify the. terms of acknowledgment of contributors who fall short of authorship status, and make decisions regarding appropriate forms of disclosure of sources of bias or other potential conflicts of interest related to published articles. For example, the New England Journal of Medicine has established a category of prohibited contributions from authors engaged in for-profit ventures: the journal will not allow

such persons to prepare review articles or editorial commentaries for publication. Editors can clarify and insist on the confidentiality of review and take appropriate actions against reviewers who violate it. Journals also may require or encourage their authors to deposit reagents and sequence and crystallographic data into appropriate databases or storage facilities. 22

Peer Review

Peer review is the process by which editors and journals seek to be advised by knowledgeable colleagues about the quality and suitability of a manuscript for publication in a journal. Peer review is also used by funding agencies to seek advice concerning the quality and promise of proposals for research support. The proliferation of research journals and the rewards associated with publication and with obtaining research grants have put substantial stress on the peer review system. Reviewers for journals or research agencies receive privileged information and must exert great care to avoid sharing such information with colleagues or allowing it to enter their own work prematurely.

Although the system of peer review is generally effective, it has been suggested that the quality of refereeing has declined, that self-interest has crept into the review process, and that some journal editors and reviewers exert inappropriate influence on the type of work they deem publishable. 23

Correction of Errors

At some level, all scientific reports, even those that mark profound advances, contain errors of fact or interpretation. In part, such errors reflect uncertainties intrinsic to the research process itself —a hypothesis is formulated, an experimental test is devised, and based on the interpretation of the results, the hypothesis is refined, revised, or discarded. Each step in this cycle is subject to error. For any given report, “correctness” is limited by the following:

The precision and accuracy of the measurements. These in turn depend on available technology, the use of proper statistical and analytical methods, and the skills of the investigator.

Generality of the experimental system and approach. Studies must often be carried out using “model systems.” In biology, for example, a given phenomenon is examined in only one or a few among millions of organismal species.

Experimental design—a product of the background and expertise of the investigator.

Interpretation and speculation regarding the significance of the findings—judgments that depend on expert knowledge, experience, and the insightfulness and boldness of the investigator.

Viewed in this context, errors are an integral aspect of progress in attaining scientific knowledge. They are consequences of the fact that scientists seek fundamental truths about natural processes of vast complexity. In the best experimental systems, it is common that relatively few variables have been identified and that even fewer can be controlled experimentally. Even when important variables are accounted for, the interpretation of the experimental results may be incorrect and may lead to an erroneous conclusion. Such conclusions are sometimes overturned by the original investigator or by others when new insights from another study prompt a reexamination of older reported data. In addition, however, erroneous information can also reach the scientific literature as a consequence of misconduct in science.

What becomes of these errors or incorrect interpretations? Much has been made of the concept that science is “self-correcting”—that errors, whether honest or products of misconduct, will be exposed in future experiments because scientific truth is founded on the principle that results must be verifiable and reproducible. This implies that errors will generally not long confound the direction of thinking or experimentation in actively pursued areas of research. Clearly, published experiments are not routinely replicated precisely by independent investigators. However, each experiment is based on conclusions from prior studies; repeated failure of the experiment eventually calls into question those conclusions and leads to reevaluation of the measurements, generality, design, and interpretation of the earlier work.

Thus publication of a scientific report provides an opportunity for the community at large to critique and build on the substance of the report, and serves as one stage at which errors and misinterpretations can be detected and corrected. Each new finding is considered by the community in light of what is already known about the system investigated, and disagreements with established measurements and interpretations must be justified. For example, a particular interpretation of an electrical measurement of a material may implicitly predict the results of an optical experiment. If the reported optical results are in disagreement with the electrical interpretation, then the latter is unlikely to be correct—even though the measurements them-

selves were carefully and correctly performed. It is also possible, however, that the contradictory results are themselves incorrect, and this possibility will also be evaluated by the scientists working in the field. It is by this process of examination and reexamination that science advances.

The research endeavor can therefore be viewed as a two-tiered process: first, hypotheses are formulated, tested, and modified; second, results and conclusions are reevaluated in the course of additional study. In fact, the two tiers are interrelated, and the goals and traditions of science mandate major responsibilities in both areas for individual investigators. Importantly, the principle of self-correction does not diminish the responsibilities of the investigator in either area. The investigator has a fundamental responsibility to ensure that the reported results can be replicated in his or her laboratory. The scientific community in general adheres strongly to this principle, but practical constraints exist as a result of the availability of specialized instrumentation, research materials, and expert personnel. Other forces, such as competition, commercial interest, funding trends and availability, or pressure to publish may also erode the role of replication as a mechanism for fostering integrity in the research process. The panel is unaware of any quantitative studies of this issue.

The process of reevaluating prior findings is closely related to the formulation and testing of hypotheses. 24 Indeed, within an individual laboratory, the formulation/testing phase and the reevaluation phase are ideally ongoing interactive processes. In that setting, the precise replication of a prior result commonly serves as a crucial control in attempts to extend the original findings. It is not unusual that experimental flaws or errors of interpretation are revealed as the scope of an investigation deepens and broadens.

If new findings or significant questions emerge in the course of a reevaluation that affect the claims of a published report, the investigator is obliged to make public a correction of the erroneous result or to indicate the nature of the questions. Occasionally, this takes the form of a formal published retraction, especially in situations in which a central claim is found to be fundamentally incorrect or irreproducible. More commonly, a somewhat different version of the original experiment, or a revised interpretation of the original result, is published as part of a subsequent report that extends in other ways the initial work. Some concerns have been raised that such “revisions” can sometimes be so subtle and obscure as to be unrecognizable. Such behavior is, at best, a questionable research practice. Clearly, each scientist has a responsibility to foster an environment that en-

courages and demands rigorous evaluation and reevaluation of every key finding.

Much greater complexity is encountered when an investigator in one research group is unable to confirm the published findings of another. In such situations, precise replication of the original result is commonly not attempted because of the lack of identical reagents, differences in experimental protocols, diverse experimental goals, or differences in personnel. Under these circumstances, attempts to obtain the published result may simply be dropped if the central claim of the original study is not the major focus of the new study. Alternatively, the inability to obtain the original finding may be documented in a paper by the second investigator as part of a challenge to the original claim. In any case, such questions about a published finding usually provoke the initial investigator to attempt to reconfirm the original result, or to pursue additional studies that support and extend the original findings.

In accordance with established principles of science, scientists have the responsibility to replicate and reconfirm their results as a normal part of the research process. The cycles of theoretical and methodological formulation, testing, and reevaluation, both within and between laboratories, produce an ongoing process of revision and refinement that corrects errors and strengthens the fabric of research.

Research Training and Mentorship

The panel defined a mentor as that person directly responsible for the professional development of a research trainee. 25 Professional development includes both technical training, such as instruction in the methods of scientific research (e.g., research design, instrument use, and selection of research questions and data), and socialization in basic research practices (e.g., authorship practices and sharing of research data).

Positive Aspects of Mentorship

The relationship of the mentor and research trainee is usually characterized by extraordinary mutual commitment and personal involvement. A mentor, as a research advisor, is generally expected to supervise the work of the trainee and ensure that the trainee's research is completed in a sound, honest, and timely manner. The ideal mentor challenges the trainee, spurs the trainee to higher scientific achievement, and helps socialize the trainee into the community

of scientists by demonstrating and discussing methods and practices that are not well understood.

Research mentors thus have complex and diverse roles. Many individuals excel in providing guidance and instruction as well as personal support, and some mentors are resourceful in providing funds and securing professional opportunities for their trainees. The mentoring relationship may also combine elements of other relationships, such as parenting, coaching, and guildmastering. One mentor has written that his “research group is like an extended family or small tribe, dependent on one another, but led by the mentor, who acts as their consultant, critic, judge, advisor, and scientific father” (Cram, 1989, p. 1). Another mentor described as “orphaned graduate students” trainees who had lost their mentors to death, job changes, or in other ways (Sindermann, 1987). Many students come to respect and admire their mentors, who act as role models for their younger colleagues.

Difficulties Associated with Mentorship

However, the mentoring relationship does not always function properly or even satisfactorily. Almost no literature exists that evaluates which problems are idiosyncratic and which are systemic. However, it is clear that traditional practices in the area of mentorship and training are under stress. In some research fields, for example, concerns are being raised about how the increasing size and diverse composition of research groups affect the quality of the relationship between trainee and mentor. As the size of research laboratories expands, the quality of the training environment is at risk (CGS, 1990a).

Large laboratories may provide valuable instrumentation and access to unique research skills and resources as well as an opportunity to work in pioneering fields of science. But as only one contribution to the efforts of a large research team, a graduate student's work may become highly specialized, leading to a narrowing of experience and greater dependency on senior personnel; in a period when the availability of funding may limit research opportunities, laboratory heads may find it necessary to balance research decisions for the good of the team against the individual educational interests of each trainee. Moreover, the demands of obtaining sufficient resources to maintain a laboratory in the contemporary research environment often separate faculty from their trainees. When laboratory heads fail to participate in the everyday workings of the laboratory—even for the most beneficent of reasons, such as finding funds to support young investigators—their inattention may harm their trainees' education.

Although the size of a research group can influence the quality of mentorship, the more important issues are the level of supervision received by trainees, the degree of independence that is appropriate for the trainees' experience and interests, and the allocation of credit for achievements that are accomplished by groups composed of individuals with different status. Certain studies involving large groups of 40 to 100 or more are commonly carried out by collaborative or hierarchical arrangements under a single investigator. These factors may affect the ability of research mentors to transmit the methods and ethical principles according to which research should be conducted.

Problems also arise when faculty members are not directly rewarded for their graduate teaching or training skills. Although faculty may receive indirect rewards from the contributions of well-trained graduate students to their own research as well as the satisfaction of seeing their students excelling elsewhere, these rewards may not be sufficiently significant in tenure or promotion decisions. When institutional policies fail to recognize and reward the value of good teaching and mentorship, the pressures to maintain stable funding for research teams in a competitive environment can overwhelm the time allocated to teaching and mentorship by a single investigator.

The increasing duration of the training period in many research fields is another source of concern, particularly when it prolongs the dependent status of the junior investigator. The formal period of graduate and postdoctoral training varies considerably among fields of study. In 1988, the median time to the doctorate from the baccalaureate degree was 6.5 years (NRC, 1989). The disciplinary median varied: 5.5 years in chemistry; 5.9 years in engineering; 7.1 years in health sciences and in earth, atmospheric, and marine sciences; and 9.0 years in anthropology and sociology. 26

Students, research associates, and faculty are currently raising various questions about the rights and obligations of trainees. Sexist behavior by some research directors and other senior scientists is a particular source of concern. Another significant concern is that research trainees may be subject to exploitation because of their subordinate status in the research laboratory, particularly when their income, access to research resources, and future recommendations are dependent on the goodwill of the mentor. Foreign students and postdoctoral fellows may be especially vulnerable, since their immigration status often depends on continuation of a research relationship with the selected mentor.

Inequalities between mentor and trainee can exacerbate ordinary conflicts such as the distribution of credit or blame for research error (NAS, 1989). When conflicts arise, the expectations and assumptions

that govern authorship practices, ownership of intellectual property, and the giving of references and recommendations are exposed for professional—and even legal—scrutiny (Nelkin, 1984; Weil and Snapper, 1989).

Making Mentorship Better

Ideally, mentors and trainees should select each other with an eye toward scientific merit, intellectual and personal compatibility, and other relevant factors. But this situation operates only under conditions of freely available information and unconstrained choice —conditions that usually do not exist in academic research groups. The trainee may choose to work with a faculty member based solely on criteria of patronage, perceived influence, or ability to provide financial support.

Good mentors may be well known and highly regarded within their research communities and institutions. Unfortunately, individuals who exploit the mentorship relationship may be less visible. Poor mentorship practices may be self-correcting over time, if students can detect and avoid research groups characterized by disturbing practices. However, individual trainees who experience abusive relationships with a mentor may discover only too late that the practices that constitute the abuse were well known but were not disclosed to new initiates.

It is common practice for a graduate student to be supervised not only by an individual mentor but also by a committee that represents the graduate department or research field of the student. However, departmental oversight is rare for the postdoctoral research fellow. In order to foster good mentorship practices for all research trainees, many groups and institutions have taken steps to clarify the nature of individual and institutional responsibilities in the mentor–trainee relationship. 27

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The self-regulatory system that characterizes the research process has evolved from a diverse set of principles, traditions, standards, and customs transmitted from senior scientists, research directors, and department chairs to younger scientists by example, discussion, and informal education. The principles of honesty, collegiality, respect for others, and commitment to dissemination, critical evaluation, and rigorous training are characteristic of all the sciences. Methods and techniques of experimentation, styles of communicating findings,

the relationship between theory and experimentation, and laboratory groupings for research and for training vary with the particular scientific disciplines. Within those disciplines, practices combine the general with the specific. Ideally, research practices reflect the values of the wider research community and also embody the practical skills needed to conduct scientific research.

Practicing scientists are guided by the principles of science and the standard practices of their particular scientific discipline as well as their personal moral principles. But conflicts are inherent among these principles. For example, loyalty to one's group of colleagues can be in conflict with the need to correct or report an abuse of scientific practice on the part of a member of that group.

Because scientists and the achievements of science have earned the respect of society at large, the behavior of scientists must accord not only with the expectations of scientific colleagues, but also with those of a larger community. As science becomes more closely linked to economic and political objectives, the processes by which scientists formulate and adhere to responsible research practices will be subject to increasing public scrutiny. This is one reason for scientists and research institutions to clarify and strengthen the methods by which they foster responsible research practices.

Accordingly, the panel emphasizes the following conclusions:

The panel believes that the existing self-regulatory system in science is sound. But modifications are necessary to foster integrity in a changing research environment, to handle cases of misconduct in science, and to discourage questionable research practices.

Individual scientists have a fundamental responsibility to ensure that their results are reproducible, that their research is reported thoroughly enough so that results are reproducible, and that significant errors are corrected when they are recognized. Editors of scientific journals share these last two responsibilities.

Research mentors, laboratory directors, department heads, and senior faculty are responsible for defining, explaining, exemplifying, and requiring adherence to the value systems of their institutions. The neglect of sound training in a mentor's laboratory will over time compromise the integrity of the research process.

Administrative officials within the research institution also bear responsibility for ensuring that good scientific practices are observed in units of appropriate jurisdiction and that balanced reward systems appropriately recognize research quality, integrity, teaching, and mentorship. Adherence to scientific principles and disciplinary standards is at the root of a vital and productive research environment.

At present, scientific principles are passed on to trainees primarily by example and discussion, including training in customary practices. Most research institutions do not have explicit programs of instruction and discussion to foster responsible research practices, but the communication of values and traditions is critical to fostering responsible research practices and detering misconduct in science.

Efforts to foster responsible research practices in areas such as data handling, communication and publication, and research training and mentorship deserve encouragement by the entire research community. Problems have also developed in these areas that require explicit attention and correction by scientists and their institutions. If not properly resolved, these problems may weaken the integrity of the research process.

1. See, for example, Kuyper (1991).

2. See, for example, the proposal by Pigman and Carmichael (1950).

3. See, for example, Holton (1988) and Ravetz (1971).

4. Several excellent books on experimental design and statistical methods are available. See, for example, Wilson (1952) and Beveridge (1957).

5. For a somewhat dated review of codes of ethics adopted by the scientific and engineering societies, see Chalk et al. (1981).

6. The discussion in this section is derived from Mark Frankel's background paper, “Professional Societies and Responsible Research Conduct,” included in Volume II of this report.

7. For a broader discussion on this point, see Zuckerman (1977).

8. For a full discussion of the roles of scientific societies in fostering responsible research practices, see the background paper prepared by Mark Frankel, “Professional Societies and Responsible Research Conduct,” in Volume II of this report.

9. Selected examples of academic research conduct policies and guidelines are included in Volume II of this report.

10. See, for example, Holton's response to the criticisms of Millikan in Chapter 12 of Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought (Holton, 1988). See also Holton (1978).

11. See, for example, responses to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences action against Friedman: Hamilton (1990) and Abelson et al. (1990). See also the discussion in Bailar et al. (1990).

12. Much of the discussion in this section is derived from a background paper, “Reflections on the Current State of Data and Reagent Exchange Among Biomedical Researchers,” prepared by Robert Weinberg and included in Volume II of this report.

13. See, for example, Culliton (1990) and Bradshaw et al. (1990). For the impact of the inability to provide corroborating data or witnesses, also see Ross et al. (1989).

14. See, for example, Rennie (1989) and Cassidy and Shamoo (1989).

15. See, for example, the discussion on random data audits in Institute of Medicine (1989a), pp. 26-27.

16. For a full discussion of the practices and policies that govern authorship in the biological sciences, see Bailar et al. (1990).

17. Note that these general guidelines exclude the provision of reagents or facilities or the supervision of research as a criteria of authorship.

18. A full discussion of problematic practices in authorship is included in Bailar et al. (1990). A controversial review of the responsibilities of co-authors is presented by Stewart and Feder (1987).

19. In the past, scientific papers often included a special note by a named researcher, not a co-author of the paper, who described, for example, a particular substance or procedure in a footnote or appendix. This practice seems to.have been abandoned for reasons that are not well understood.

20. Martin et al. (1969), as cited in Sigma Xi (1986), p. 41.

21. Huth (1988) suggests a “notice of fraud or notice of suspected fraud” issued by the journal editor to call attention to the controversy (p. 38). Angell (1983) advocates closer coordination between institutions and editors when institutions have ascertained misconduct.

22. Such facilities include Cambridge Crystallographic Data Base, GenBank at Los Alamos National Laboratory, the American Type Culture Collection, and the Protein Data Bank at Brookhaven National Laboratory. Deposition is important for data that cannot be directly printed because of large volume.

23. For more complete discussions of peer review in the wider context, see, for example, Cole et al. (1977) and Chubin and Hackett (1990).

24. The strength of theories as sources of the formulation of scientific laws and predictive power varies among different fields of science. For example, theories derived from observations in the field of evolutionary biology lack a great deal of predictive power. The role of chance in mutation and natural selection is great, and the future directions that evolution may take are essentially impossible to predict. Theory has enormous power for clarifying understanding of how evolution has occurred and for making sense of detailed data, but its predictive power in this field is very limited. See, for example, Mayr (1982, 1988).

25. Much of the discussion on mentorship is derived from a background paper prepared for the panel by David Guston. A copy of the full paper, “Mentorship and the Research Training Experience,” is included in Volume II of this report.

26. Although the time to the doctorate is increasing, there is some evidence that the magnitude of the increase may be affected by the organization of the cohort chosen for study. In the humanities, the increased time to the doctorate is not as large if one chooses as an organizational base the year in which the baccalaureate was received by Ph.D. recipients, rather than the year in which the Ph.D. was completed; see Bowen et al. (1991).

27. Some universities have written guidelines for the supervision or mentorship of trainees as part of their institutional research policy guidelines (see, for example, the guidelines adopted by Harvard University and the University of Michigan that are included in Volume II of this report). Other groups or institutions have written “guidelines ” (IOM, 1989a; NIH, 1990), “checklists” (CGS, 1990a), and statements of “areas of concern” and suggested “devices” (CGS, 1990c).

The guidelines often affirm the need for regular, personal interaction between the mentor and the trainee. They indicate that mentors may need to limit the size of their laboratories so that they are able to interact directly and frequently with all of their trainees. Although there are many ways to ensure responsible mentorship, methods that provide continuous feedback, whether through formal or informal mechanisms, are apt to be the most successful (CGS, 1990a). Departmental mentorship awards (comparable to teaching or research prizes) can recognize, encourage, and enhance the

mentoring relationship. For other discussions on mentorship, see the paper by David Guston in Volume II of this report.

One group convened by the Institute of Medicine has suggested “that the university has a responsibility to ensure that the size of a research unit does not outstrip the mentor's ability to maintain adequate supervision” (IOM, 1989a, p. 85). Others have noted that although it may be desirable to limit the number of trainees assigned to a senior investigator, there is insufficient information at this time to suggest that numbers alone significantly affect the quality of research supervision (IOM, 1989a, p. 33).

Responsible Science is a comprehensive review of factors that influence the integrity of the research process. Volume I examines reports on the incidence of misconduct in science and reviews institutional and governmental efforts to handle cases of misconduct.

The result of a two-year study by a panel of experts convened by the National Academy of Sciences, this book critically analyzes the impact of today's research environment on the traditional checks and balances that foster integrity in science.

Responsible Science is a provocative examination of the role of educational efforts; research guidelines; and the contributions of individual scientists, mentors, and institutional officials in encouraging responsible research practices.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.