Opinion
Digital Image Ethics for a New Generation
D. W. Cromey
Cell Biology & Anatomy, University of Arizona, 1501 N. Campbell Ave., Tucson, AZ, 85724-5044
cromey@arizona.edu
The first time many of us saw a photographic darkroom, accepted manuscripts at that journal, approximately 23% of the
we entered into a place full of interesting equipment and odors, images had undergone some alteration [9].
all lit with a dim colored light. To successfully create negatives Although the incidence of fraudulent images is rare,
and prints, we were taught about proper exposures, chemical inappropriate image manipulation is an ongoing problem that
temperatures, different grades of paper, and probably a few needs to be addressed by the scientific community. An analysis
tricks like dodging and burning. Most of today’s students have of recent ORI misconduct cases (of all types) suggests that, to
never used an enlarger. Their darkroom is found in programs
avoid trainee misconduct, mentors need to play a more active
like Adobe Photoshop. Unfortunately, many of these students
role in supervising their trainees [10]. The key suggestions
do not know much about the proper way to work with digital
drawn from this analysis were that mentors should: regularly
images. As imaging in microscopes becomes more digital, it is
review the original source data with their trainees, teach proper
up to faculty mentors and facility managers to be deliberate in
standards for working with scientific data, and be aware that
teaching a new generation of microscopists how to correctly
overwhelmed/stressed trainees can make unwise decisions.
work with digital images.
At the University of Arizona, three microscopy facility
Prior to the year 2000, little was said in the scientific press
managers and a professional photographer have banded
about digital image ethics. There were a few news stories about
together to teach specific digital image research standards by
allegations of misconduct [1], but during that time even the journals
offering a twice-yearly workshop entitled “Introduction to
were struggling with making the transition from photographic
using Digital Images in Science.” [11] This half-day workshop
to digital images [2]. In the last seven years, the most prominent
introduces members of the campus community to basic digital
voice calling for changes in the way image manipulations are
image concepts such as: pixels, voxels, bit depth, color, CCD
reported has been the Journal of Cell Biology’s (JCB) Dr. Michael
cameras, noise, sampling, digital filters, file formats, monitor
Rossner [3]. One of the earliest societies to take a stand on this
calibration, and data presentation. In addition to lectures,
issue, the Microscopy Society of America, published its official
these concepts, as well as common image processing pitfalls,
position on ethical digital imaging in 2003 [4].
are demonstrated using Adobe Photoshop. A twelve-point list
Given the growing concern in the scientific community
of guidelines for the proper acquisition and manipulation of
about digital image manipulation ethics, one wonders how
scientific digital images [12] is presented at the workshop, with
extensive the problem really is. At its worst, image manipulation
each presenter intentionally reiterating several of the guidelines.
can be used to commit scientific fraud.
The goal is to impress upon the attendees that scientific digital
The U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) investigates
imaging is not as simple as they may have thought and that
misconduct allegations that involve funds from such agencies
great care must be taken when working with digital image data.
as the NIH, PHS, CDC, and FDA. The ORI defines research
After the workshop, the presenters make themselves available
misconduct as “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in
as a resource to the campus community. The workshop outline
proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting
is available online [13].
research results.” [5] Over the last decade, the ORI has seen the
The twelve guidelines are available to the microscopy
percentage of cases that include questioned images increase
community as a training tool at the “Online Learning Tool for
from approximately 5% fifteen years ago to over 60% in
Research Integrity and Image Processing.” [14] The site explains
2007-2008 [6].
the rationale behind each of the specific guidelines in an
The ORI often sees the more egregious misconduct
outline format. The website includes instructional videos and
an interview with Dale Benos, formerly editor-in-chief for the
cases, but how bad is the problem with inappropriate image
American Journal of Physiology: Cell Physiology.
manipulation elsewhere? In 2002, the JCB hired a special editor
The continuing problem of inappropriately manipulated
whose job was to screen reviewed and accepted articles for
images indicates that a greater effort must be made to educate
image manipulations that violated the journal’s instructions to
the scientific community. Microscopists in responsible
authors [3]. Since that time, the JCB has identified 250 papers
positions should take up the challenge to teach their colleagues,
with questionable images. Twenty-five of these were rejected
and especially their trainees, about appropriate ways to work
because the manipulations affected the interpretation of the
with digital images.
data [7]. Where do these rejected papers go? At least twice Dr.
Rossner noticed that a paper rejected by the JCB was published
References
in a different journal [8]. A survey conducted by the American
[1] DW Cromey, J Sci Eng Ethics (2009, in press).
Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine found that of [2] MT Rossner et al., CBE Views 21(6) (1998) 187-192.
72 doi: 10.1017/S1551929509000431
www.microscopy-today.com • 2009 September
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76