Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Handling Anomalous Data in the Lab: Students’ Perspectives on Deleting and Discarding

  • Original Research/Scholarship
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents and discusses empirical results from a survey about the research practice of Danish chemistry students, with a main focus on the question of anomalous data. It seeks to investigate how such data is handled by students, with special attention to so-called ‘questionable research practices’ (QRPs) where anomalous data are simply deleted or discarded. This question of QRPs is of particular importance as the educational practices students experience may influence how they act in their future professional careers, for instance in research. The ethical evaluation of QRPs however is not univocal. In parts of the literature QRPs are seen as unquestionably bad, while in other parts of the literature certain QRPs are seen as a necessary aspect of scientific practice. Results from the survey of Danish chemistry students shows that many students engage in certain types of questionable practices, and that a large minority of the students have been actively encouraged by their teachers to engage in such practices. The paper discusses to what extent and under what circumstances such instructional practices can be defended and suggests how the instructional practice connected to the handling of anomalous data can be improved.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For instance, in the ABET criteria concerning Student Outcomes two of the eleven learning outcomes are: “(b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data” and “(f) an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility” (ABET 2017, p. 3).

  2. In the paper, Mike Smith and Lawrence Scharmann deliberately seek to replace the sharp demarcation between science and non-science with a qualitative continuum, where a given field can be seen as ‘more’ or ‘less’ scientific depending on certain charateristics.

References

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2013). Teaching with and about nature of science, and science teacher knowledge domains. Science & Education,22, 2087–2107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ABET (2017). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs—effective for reviews during the 2017–2018 accreditation cycle. Engineering Accreditation Commission. http://www.abet.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/E001-17-18-EAC-Criteria-10-29-16-1.pdf. Retrieved from 21 March 2018.

  • Belter, R. W., & du Pré, A. (2009). A strategy to reduce plagiarism in an undergraduate course. Teaching of Psychology,36(4), 257–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research,63(1), 1–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coady, C. A. J. (1992). Testimony: A Philosophical Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, S., Drinan, P. F., & Gallant, T. B. (2009). Cheating in School, What we Know and What we Can Do. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vries, R., Anderson, M., & Martinson, B. C. (2006). Normal misbehavior: Scientists talk about the ethics of research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal,1(1), 43–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobzhansky, T. (1967). Review: Looking back at mendel’s discovery. Science, New Series,156(3782), 1588–1589.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE,4(5), e5738. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farley, J., & Geison, G. (1974). Science, politics and spontaneous generation in nineteenth-century France: The Pasteur–Pouchet debate. Bulletin of the History of Medicine,48(2), 161–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fine, A. (1998). The viewpoint of no one in particular. In Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 72(2), pp. 7–20.

  • Harding, T. S., Carpenter, D. D., Finelli, C. J., & Passow, H. J. (2004). Does academic dishonesty relate to unethical behavior in professional practice? An exploratory study. Science and Engineering Ethics,10(2), 311–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardwig, J. (1985). Epistemic dependence. Journal of Philosophy,82(7), 335–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henslee, A., Murray, M., Olbricht, S., Ludlow, L., Hays, G., & Nelson, R. (2017). Assessing freshman engineering students’ understanding of ethical behavior. Science and Engineering Ethics,23(1), 287–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education,88(1), 28–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holton, G. (1978). Subelectrons, presuppositions, and the Millikan–Ehrenhaft Dispute. Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences,9, 161–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, J. M. C., & McCabe, D. L. (2006). Academic misconduct within higher education in Canada. Canadian Journal of Higher Education,36(2), 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • John, L., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science,23(5), 524–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kipnis, N. (2011). Errors in science and their treatment in teaching science. Science & Education,20(7–8), 655–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1959). The essential tension: Tradition and innovation in scientific research. In C. W. Taylor & F. Barron (Eds.), Scientific Creativity: Its Recognition and Development (pp. 341–354). New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & De Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature,435(7043), 737–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, D. L. (1997). Classroom cheating among natural science and engineering majors. Science and Engineering Ethics,3(4), 433–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, D. L. (2005). Cheating among college and university students: A North American perspective. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 1(1). https://www.ojs.unisa.edu.au/index.php/IJEI/article/view/14. Retrieved from 21 March 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.21913/IJEI.v1i1.14.

  • McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L., & Butterfield, K. (2001). Cheating in academic institutions: A decade of research. Ethics and Behavior,11(3), 219–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merriam-Webster (2017). Online dictionary (https://www.merriam-webster.com). The online dictionary was accessed October 6 2017 with the search key “questionable”.

  • Michaels, D. (2007). Doubt is their product, how industry’s assault on science threatens your health. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miñano, R., Uruburu, Á., Moreno-Romero, A., & Pérez-López, D. (2017). Strategies for teaching professional ethics to IT engineering degree students and evaluating the result. Science and Engineering Ethics,23(1), 263–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, M. D., Connelly, S., Brown, R. P., Murphy, S. T., Hill, J. H., Antes, A. L., et al. (2008). A sensemaking approach to ethics training for scientists: Preliminary evidence of training effectiveness. Ethics and Behavior,18(4), 315–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M. (1967). The Tacit Dimension. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravetz, J. R. (1971). Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid, N., & Shah, I. (2007). The role of laboratory work in university chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice,8(2), 172–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapin, S. (1995). Trust, honesty and the authority of science. In R. E. Bulger, E. Meyer Bobby, & H. V. Fineberg (Eds.), Society’s Choices: Social and Ethical Decision Making in Biomedicine (pp. 388–408). Washington: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. U. (2013). The role of authority in science and religion with implications for science teaching and learning. Science & Education,22(3), 605–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. U., & Scharmann, L. C. (1999). Defining versus describing the nature of science: A pragmatic analysis for classroom teachers and science educators. Science Education,83(4), 493–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steneck, N. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics,12(1), 53–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Swazey, J. P., Anderson, M. S., & Lewis, K. S. (1993). Ethical problems in academic research. American Scientist,81(6), 542–553.

    Google Scholar 

  • VanDeGrift, T., Dillon, H., & Camp, L. (2017). Changing the engineering student culture with respect to academic integrity and ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics,23(4), 1159–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Washburn, J. (2005). University Inc., The Corporate Corruption of American Higher Education. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, C.-F. (2003). A study of the adjustment of ethical recogntion and ethical decision-making of managers-to-be across the Taiwan Strait before and after receiving a business ethics education. Journal of Business Ethics,45(4), 291–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zigmond, M. J., & Fischer, B. A. (2002). Beyond fabrication and plagiarism: The little murders of everyday science. Science and Engineering Ethics,8(2), 229–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziman, J. (2000). Real Science: What it is and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Science Education, University of Copenhagen, Øster Voldgade 3, 1350, Copenhagen K, Denmark

    Mikkel Willum Johansen & Frederik Voetmann Christiansen

Authors
  1. Mikkel Willum Johansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Frederik Voetmann Christiansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mikkel Willum Johansen.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Johansen, M.W., Christiansen, F.V. Handling Anomalous Data in the Lab: Students’ Perspectives on Deleting and Discarding. Sci Eng Ethics 26, 1107–1128 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00206-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00206-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation