Scientific integrity issues in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry: Improving research reproducibility, credibility, and transparency

Abstract

High-profile reports of detrimental scientific practices leading to retractions in the scientific literature contribute to lack of trust in scientific experts. Although the bulk of these have been in the literature of other disciplines, environmental toxicology and chemistry are not free from problems. While we believe that egregious misconduct such as fraud, fabrication of data, or plagiarism is rare, scientific integrity is much broader than the absence of misconduct. We are more concerned with more commonly encountered and nuanced issues such as poor reliability and bias. We review a range of topics including conflicts of interests, competing interests, some particularly challenging situations, reproducibility, bias, and other attributes of ecotoxicological studies that enhance or detract from scientific credibility. Our vision of scientific integrity encourages a self-correcting culture that promotes scientific rigor, relevant reproducible research, transparency in competing interests, methods and results, and education. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2019;00:000-000. © 2019 SETAC.

Keywords: Bias; Reproducibility; Research integrity; Scientific integrity; Transparency.

Figure 1

Conflicts of interest in science arise when secondary interests such as financial gain or maintaining professional relationships compromise the primary interest of upholding scientific norms such as the objective design, conduct, and interpretation of studies and the open sharing of scientific discoveries to advance our collective learning (Reprinted with permission. © Benita Epstein.)

Figure 2

Confirmation bias is the tendency to seek and interpret evidence in a way that confirms preexisting beliefs and gives less consideration to alternative hypotheses (Reprinted with permission. © Benita Epstein).

Figure 3

Large environmental chemistry and toxicology laboratories that use standard methods to produce results that may be submitted to regulatory agencies usually have a well-established quality management structure. Quality management in academic research laboratories focused on novel methods may be more ad hoc, especially if the research work force is dominated by transient scientists, such as students or those on short-term postgraduate appointments (Credit: S Harris, sciencecartoonsplus.com).

Figure 4

The brief methods descriptions in journal articles are seldom sufficient to be reproducible by others. Step-by-step video documentation of experimental protocols can be published as video articles, uploaded to online repositories, or published as supplemental information. Video protocols are underutilized in environmental toxicology (Credit: S Harris, sciencecartoonsplus.com).