Veterinary Medical Ethics Déontologie vétérinaire Ethical question of the month — August 2015 Future global food shortages are used to defend intensive and efficient livestock agricultural practices. If the predictions of global food shortages come to pass, will we be able to justify feeding cereal grains to livestock in intensive or extensive livestock operations?
Question de déontologie du mois — Août 2015 Les pénuries alimentaires mondiales futures servent à défendre les pratiques de l’élevage intensif et efficace. Si les prédictions de pénuries alimentaires se réalisent, pourrons-nous justifier l’élevage intensif ou à grande échelle d’animaux nourris d’une alimentation à base de céréales?
Comments/Commentaires :
Name/Nom : Address/Adresse :
Responses to the case presented are welcome. Please limit your reply to approximately 50 words and forward along with your name and address to: Ethical Choices, c/o Dr. Tim Blackwell, 6486 E. Garafraxa, Townline, Belwood, Ontario N0B 1J0; telephone: (519) 846-3413; fax: (519) 846-8178; e-mail: [email protected]. Suggested ethical questions of the month are also welcome! All ethical questions or scenarios in the ethics column are based on actual events, which are changed, including names, locations, species, etc., to protect the confidentiality of the parties involved.
Les réponses au cas présenté sont les bienvenues. Veuillez limiter votre réponse à environ 50 mots et nous la faire parvenir par la poste avec vos nom et adresse à l’adresse suivante : Choix déontologiques, a/s du D r Tim Blackwell, 6486, E. Garafraxa, Townline, Belwood (Ontario) N0B 1J0; téléphone : (519) 846-3413; télécopieur : (519) 846-8178; courriel : [email protected]. Les propositions de questions déontologiques sont toujours bienvenues! Toutes les questions et situations présentées dans cette chronique s’inspirent d’événements réels dont nous modifions certains éléments, comme les noms, les endroits ou les espèces, pour protéger l’anonymat des personnes en cause.
Use of this article is limited to a single copy for personal study. Anyone interested in obtaining reprints should contact the CVMA office ([email protected]) for additional copies or permission to use this material elsewhere. L’usage du présent article se limite à un seul exemplaire pour étude personnelle. Les personnes intéressées à se procurer des réimpressions devraient communiquer avec le bureau de l’ACMV ([email protected]) pour obtenir des exemplaires additionnels ou la permission d’utiliser cet article ailleurs. CVJ / VOL 56 / AUGUST 2015
793
D É O N TO LO G I E V É T É R I N A I R E
Ethical question of the month — May 2015 The authorship of scientific publications has changed. One to three authors of a scientific publication was once the norm. Today dozens and sometimes hundreds of individuals may be listed as authors on a single study. Authorship was once assumed to indicate a critical and specific contribution to the research process; however, recently there has developed a trend for authorship to be given to individuals for minor contributions or for providing routine services within a research establishment. Most scientific journals have lenient policies in determining authorship and some journals have no criteria whatsoever. The number of scientific publications in a researcher’s résumé is critical to their advancement within a scientific establishment and this creates a “no-cost” incentive for scientists to spread authorship widely. Recently, in cases of scientific fraud, certain co-authors listed on a fraudulent publication were exonerated after it was determined they had only the most superficial connection to the fraudulent research. Some argue that authorship should be limited to those who have made critical and specific contributions to the research. Is there any real harm in casting the authorship net widely?
Question de déontologie du mois — Mai 2015 La paternité des publications scientifiques a changé. La norme était autrefois d’un à trois auteurs pour une publication scientifique. Aujourd’hui, des dizaines, voire parfois des centaines, de personnes sont citées en tant qu’auteurs pour une seule étude. On présumait anciennement que la paternité littéraire indiquait une contribution critique et spécifique au processus de recherche. Cependant, il s’est récemment développé une tendance qui consiste à donner la paternité à des personnes pour des contributions mineures ou pour la prestation de services de routine dans un établissement de recherche. La plupart des revues scientifiques ont des politiques moins strictes pour la détermination de la paternité littéraire et certaines revues n’ont absolument aucun critère. Le nombre de publications scientifiques dans le curriculum vitæ d’un chercheur est critique pour son avancement dans un établissement scientifique et cela crée un incitatif «gratuit» en vue d’étendre la paternité littéraire. Récemment, dans des cas de fraude scientifique, certains coauteurs énumérés sur une publication frauduleuse ont été exonérés après qu’il a été déterminé qu’ils avaient seulement un lien superficiel avec la recherche frauduleuse. Certains font valoir que la paternité littéraire devrait se limiter aux personnes qui ont apporté des contributions critiques et spécifiques à la recherche. L’attribution étendue de la paternité littéraire cause-elle des torts réels?
An ethicist’s commentary on scientific authorship Between 1976 and 1986, two colleagues of mine from Colorado State University (CSU) and I wrote some drastic revisions of United States federal law designed to protect laboratory animals. This law was very much in need of being updated. Although the research community had assured United States Congress that analgesia was liberally deployed to alleviate pain in animals used in research, a literature search in 1982 revealed no papers on laboratory animal analgesia. The same search repeated 2 years ago revealed well over 12 000 papers, attesting to the value of legislation for reforming animal use. The mainstay of the law was the establishment of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), and such committees, a concept derived from the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) system of regulation. In order to prove to Congress that the system would work, we established a model IACUC at CSU that, among other things, reviewed research protocols before allowing them to go forward, and inspected facilities. For credibility, we staffed the committee with some of our most prominent researchers. Very early on in the review process, committee members discovered that they were named as participants in projects they had never agreed to work on! When they investigated, they learned that they had been so included because, for example, they supplied a reagent or piece of research apparatus — most of them had no notion 794
of the details or purpose of the research! Clearly, their inclusion was intended to provide credibility to the project. Over the ensuing years, as the case suggests, we have seen more and more researchers being included in research papers as part of the authorship, even though they have virtually nothing to do with the design or conduct of the research. On one occasion, I was astonished to find my own name being accorded co-authorship on a paper dealing with the use of waterbeds to prevent injury to dairy cattle. I was certainly a member of the author’s doctoral committee, but had nothing whatsoever to do with her (ingenious) approach to minimizing injury. What harm does this do? Clearly it misappropriates credit and trivializes authorship. Increasing numbers of academics only credit papers to first and second authors to avoid “authorship inflation.” The editor of a very prominent medical journal has seriously suggested that only a few papers illustrating the quality of one’s work be counted towards tenure and promotion. In effect, being accorded authorship when one has done little or nothing to advance the project, is logically analogous to plagiarism wherein one takes credit for something one has not done. In addition, it creates a very cynical mindset among nascent researchers regarding the value of publication. All of this is highly ironic in a time where much jowl shaking is being expended regarding “misconduct in science.” Crediting CVJ / VOL 56 / AUGUST 2015
CVJ / VOL 56 / AUGUST 2015
making everyone a winner is rapidly dispelled by what happens in the real world. Children soon find out that not everyone is a winner. The vast majority of people do not get to play on the varsity team, or get admitted to Ivy League colleges. It is much more important to learn early to assess one’s strengths and limitations, rather than to live in the proverbial fool’s paradise. Bernard E. Rollin, PhD
795
V E T E R I N A RY M E D I CA L E T H I C S
people with authorship when they have done nothing is essentially going to create cynicism very early in their career. And that in turn cheapens the value of scientific activity and denudes science of the element of creativity manifest in good science. It also serves to promote other forms of cheating. Such behavior is more than a little bit reminiscent of the mentality regnant in primary schools where no one keeps score so that everyone is seen as a winner. The rosy glow created by
Question de déontologie du mois — Août 2015 Les pénuries alimentaires mondiales futures servent à défendre les pratiques de l’élevage intensif et efficace. Si les prédictions de pénuries alimentaires se réalisent, pourrons-nous justifier l’élevage intensif ou à grande échelle d’animaux nourris d’une alimentation à base de céréales?
Comments/Commentaires :
Name/Nom : Address/Adresse :
Responses to the case presented are welcome. Please limit your reply to approximately 50 words and forward along with your name and address to: Ethical Choices, c/o Dr. Tim Blackwell, 6486 E. Garafraxa, Townline, Belwood, Ontario N0B 1J0; telephone: (519) 846-3413; fax: (519) 846-8178; e-mail: [email protected]. Suggested ethical questions of the month are also welcome! All ethical questions or scenarios in the ethics column are based on actual events, which are changed, including names, locations, species, etc., to protect the confidentiality of the parties involved.
Les réponses au cas présenté sont les bienvenues. Veuillez limiter votre réponse à environ 50 mots et nous la faire parvenir par la poste avec vos nom et adresse à l’adresse suivante : Choix déontologiques, a/s du D r Tim Blackwell, 6486, E. Garafraxa, Townline, Belwood (Ontario) N0B 1J0; téléphone : (519) 846-3413; télécopieur : (519) 846-8178; courriel : [email protected]. Les propositions de questions déontologiques sont toujours bienvenues! Toutes les questions et situations présentées dans cette chronique s’inspirent d’événements réels dont nous modifions certains éléments, comme les noms, les endroits ou les espèces, pour protéger l’anonymat des personnes en cause.
Use of this article is limited to a single copy for personal study. Anyone interested in obtaining reprints should contact the CVMA office ([email protected]) for additional copies or permission to use this material elsewhere. L’usage du présent article se limite à un seul exemplaire pour étude personnelle. Les personnes intéressées à se procurer des réimpressions devraient communiquer avec le bureau de l’ACMV ([email protected]) pour obtenir des exemplaires additionnels ou la permission d’utiliser cet article ailleurs. CVJ / VOL 56 / AUGUST 2015
793
D É O N TO LO G I E V É T É R I N A I R E
Ethical question of the month — May 2015 The authorship of scientific publications has changed. One to three authors of a scientific publication was once the norm. Today dozens and sometimes hundreds of individuals may be listed as authors on a single study. Authorship was once assumed to indicate a critical and specific contribution to the research process; however, recently there has developed a trend for authorship to be given to individuals for minor contributions or for providing routine services within a research establishment. Most scientific journals have lenient policies in determining authorship and some journals have no criteria whatsoever. The number of scientific publications in a researcher’s résumé is critical to their advancement within a scientific establishment and this creates a “no-cost” incentive for scientists to spread authorship widely. Recently, in cases of scientific fraud, certain co-authors listed on a fraudulent publication were exonerated after it was determined they had only the most superficial connection to the fraudulent research. Some argue that authorship should be limited to those who have made critical and specific contributions to the research. Is there any real harm in casting the authorship net widely?
Question de déontologie du mois — Mai 2015 La paternité des publications scientifiques a changé. La norme était autrefois d’un à trois auteurs pour une publication scientifique. Aujourd’hui, des dizaines, voire parfois des centaines, de personnes sont citées en tant qu’auteurs pour une seule étude. On présumait anciennement que la paternité littéraire indiquait une contribution critique et spécifique au processus de recherche. Cependant, il s’est récemment développé une tendance qui consiste à donner la paternité à des personnes pour des contributions mineures ou pour la prestation de services de routine dans un établissement de recherche. La plupart des revues scientifiques ont des politiques moins strictes pour la détermination de la paternité littéraire et certaines revues n’ont absolument aucun critère. Le nombre de publications scientifiques dans le curriculum vitæ d’un chercheur est critique pour son avancement dans un établissement scientifique et cela crée un incitatif «gratuit» en vue d’étendre la paternité littéraire. Récemment, dans des cas de fraude scientifique, certains coauteurs énumérés sur une publication frauduleuse ont été exonérés après qu’il a été déterminé qu’ils avaient seulement un lien superficiel avec la recherche frauduleuse. Certains font valoir que la paternité littéraire devrait se limiter aux personnes qui ont apporté des contributions critiques et spécifiques à la recherche. L’attribution étendue de la paternité littéraire cause-elle des torts réels?
An ethicist’s commentary on scientific authorship Between 1976 and 1986, two colleagues of mine from Colorado State University (CSU) and I wrote some drastic revisions of United States federal law designed to protect laboratory animals. This law was very much in need of being updated. Although the research community had assured United States Congress that analgesia was liberally deployed to alleviate pain in animals used in research, a literature search in 1982 revealed no papers on laboratory animal analgesia. The same search repeated 2 years ago revealed well over 12 000 papers, attesting to the value of legislation for reforming animal use. The mainstay of the law was the establishment of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), and such committees, a concept derived from the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) system of regulation. In order to prove to Congress that the system would work, we established a model IACUC at CSU that, among other things, reviewed research protocols before allowing them to go forward, and inspected facilities. For credibility, we staffed the committee with some of our most prominent researchers. Very early on in the review process, committee members discovered that they were named as participants in projects they had never agreed to work on! When they investigated, they learned that they had been so included because, for example, they supplied a reagent or piece of research apparatus — most of them had no notion 794
of the details or purpose of the research! Clearly, their inclusion was intended to provide credibility to the project. Over the ensuing years, as the case suggests, we have seen more and more researchers being included in research papers as part of the authorship, even though they have virtually nothing to do with the design or conduct of the research. On one occasion, I was astonished to find my own name being accorded co-authorship on a paper dealing with the use of waterbeds to prevent injury to dairy cattle. I was certainly a member of the author’s doctoral committee, but had nothing whatsoever to do with her (ingenious) approach to minimizing injury. What harm does this do? Clearly it misappropriates credit and trivializes authorship. Increasing numbers of academics only credit papers to first and second authors to avoid “authorship inflation.” The editor of a very prominent medical journal has seriously suggested that only a few papers illustrating the quality of one’s work be counted towards tenure and promotion. In effect, being accorded authorship when one has done little or nothing to advance the project, is logically analogous to plagiarism wherein one takes credit for something one has not done. In addition, it creates a very cynical mindset among nascent researchers regarding the value of publication. All of this is highly ironic in a time where much jowl shaking is being expended regarding “misconduct in science.” Crediting CVJ / VOL 56 / AUGUST 2015
CVJ / VOL 56 / AUGUST 2015
making everyone a winner is rapidly dispelled by what happens in the real world. Children soon find out that not everyone is a winner. The vast majority of people do not get to play on the varsity team, or get admitted to Ivy League colleges. It is much more important to learn early to assess one’s strengths and limitations, rather than to live in the proverbial fool’s paradise. Bernard E. Rollin, PhD
795
V E T E R I N A RY M E D I CA L E T H I C S
people with authorship when they have done nothing is essentially going to create cynicism very early in their career. And that in turn cheapens the value of scientific activity and denudes science of the element of creativity manifest in good science. It also serves to promote other forms of cheating. Such behavior is more than a little bit reminiscent of the mentality regnant in primary schools where no one keeps score so that everyone is seen as a winner. The rosy glow created by
