Lab Quits Research After Video of Animal Treatment

A short article in the New York Time this week discusses the the problems a North Carolina laboratory is facing after PETA release and undercover video showing lab workers cruelly treating cats, dogs, and rabbits. The company voluntarily stopped research after the video was released, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture has started a formal investigation.

Stories like this should prompt us all to consider how animals are used in the testing of consumer products and in medical research. No matter what your stance is on this topic, most would agree that researchers have a duty to minimize the suffering of animals under their care. For more information, check out a bibliography that CSEP Library has put together of best practices, guidelines, and books and articles discussing the use of animals research subjects.

Ethics Bibliographies

Over this summer, CSEP Library has been working with the Online Ethics Center of the National Academy of Engineering to develop a series of bibliographies on ethical questions that arise in engineering practice, such as issues of sustainability, social justice, professional practice and legal issues. Check out the full list by visiting the Bibliographies Section of the OEC site.

Update on Harvard Misconduct case

A committee at Harvard University has found psychology faculty member Marc Hauser "solely responsible" for eight instances of scientific misconduct, including problems in three published and five unpublished studies of data acquisition, data analysis, data retention and the reporting of research methodologies and results.

See "Harvard Finds Psychology Researcher "Solely Responsible" for Scientific Misconduct" by Tom Bartlett, Chronicle of Higher Education, 8/20/2010.

In Harvard Lab Inquiry, a Raid and 3-Year Wait

Interesting article in the New Times discussing the career of well-known Harvard psychologist Dr. Marc Hauser and questions being raised about his research methods and the validity of some of his findings. Is this a question of an innovative scientist having research methods that differ from his colleagues and a few honest mistakes made, or a question of misconduct?

In Harvard Lab Inquiry, a Raid and 3-Year Wait by Nicole Wade

Peers nip misconduct in the bud

A relatively recent editorial in the July 22 edition of Nature reports the results of a survey looking at how scientists respond when they see instances of misconduct being performed by their colleagues. The results show that informal intervention where a researcher talks to his colleague in an non-adversarial way is often an effective way to change behavior, and respondents reported to have suffered little fallout from these interventions.

To read more, please see Peers Nip Misconduct in the Bud by Gerald Koocher and Patricia Keith-Spiegel

(A subscription to Nature is required to view the full article.)

Fixing Peer Review

An editorial in the latest edition of The Scientist discusses five academic papers that ended up being published in less prestigious journals than they should have due to problems in the peer review system. These problems include that the peer review process discourages truly innovative ideas whole publishing status quo or "hot" fields of the day, and that it can take months or years to be able to spot and evaluate the importance of a paper and the impact it may have on its field.

For years, the peer review process has attracted criticism, and this paper aptly highlights five instances when peer review failed. The question is, what are some better alternatives to the process at it currently exists today?

The full article is available off The Scientist Web site. "Breakthroughs from the Second Tier"

Offshore Stem Cell Clinics Sell Hope, Not Science

This morning on NPR, reporter Richard Knox discussed how some overseas companies are offering stem cell treatments to customers over the web for spine injuries, heart disease, and many other conditions. However, for many of these conditions stem cell treatment is not the answer, and customers often spend thousands of dollars on stem-cell therapies with little benefit to themselves.

Read or listen to the full article here.

Should the national governments or other international regulatory organizations try and put a stop to this kind of false advertising, or this a case of buyer beware?