The first time many of us saw a photographic darkroom,
we entered into a place full of interesting equipment and odors,
all lit with a dim colored light. To successfully create negatives
and prints, we were taught about proper exposures, chemical
temperatures, different grades of paper, and probably a few
tricks like dodging and burning. Most of today’s students have
never used an enlarger. Their darkroom is found in programs
like Adobe­­­Photoshop. Unfortunately, many of these students
do not know much about the proper way to work with digital
images. As imaging in microscopes becomes more digital, it is
up to faculty mentors and facility managers to be deliberate in
teaching a new generation of microscopists how to correctly
work with digital images.
	 Prior to the year 2000, little was said in the scientific press
about digital image ethics. There were a few news stories about
allegationsofmisconduct[1],butduringthattimeeventhe journals
were struggling with making the transition from photographic
to digital images [2]. In the last seven years, the most prominent
voice calling for changes in the way image manipulations are
reported has been the Journal of Cell Biology’s (JCB) Dr. Michael
Rossner [3]. One of the earliest societies to take a stand on this
issue, the Microscopy Society of America, published its official
position on ethical digital imaging in 2003 [4].
	 Given the growing concern in the scientific community
about digital image manipulation ethics, one wonders how
extensive the problem really is. At its worst, image manipulation
can be used to commit scientific fraud.
	 The U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) investigates
misconduct allegations that involve funds from such agencies
as the NIH, PHS, CDC, and FDA. The ORI defines research
misconduct as “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in
proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting
research results.” [5] Over the last decade, the ORI has seen the
percentage of cases that include questioned images increase
from approximately 5% fifteen years ago to over 60% in
2007-2008 [6].
	 The ORI often sees the more egregious misconduct
cases, but how bad is the problem with inappropriate image
manipulation elsewhere? In 2002, the JCB hired a special editor
whose job was to screen reviewed and accepted articles for
image manipulations that violated the journal’s instructions to
authors [3]. Since that time, the JCB has identified 250 papers
with questionable images. Twenty-five of these were rejected
because the manipulations affected the interpretation of the
data [7]. Where do these rejected papers go? At least twice Dr.
Rossner noticed that a paper rejected by the JCB was published
in a different journal [8]. A survey conducted by the American
Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine found that of
accepted manuscripts at that journal, approximately 23% of the
images had undergone some alteration [9].
	 Although the incidence of fraudulent images is rare,
inappropriate image manipulation is an ongoing problem that
needs to be addressed by the scientific community. An analysis
of recent ORI misconduct cases (of all types) suggests that, to
avoid trainee misconduct, mentors need to play a more active
role in supervising their trainees [10]. The key suggestions
drawn from this analysis were that mentors should: regularly
review the original source data with their trainees, teach proper
standards for working with scientific data, and be aware that
overwhelmed/stressed trainees can make unwise decisions.
	 At the University of Arizona, three microscopy facility
managers and a professional photographer have banded
together to teach specific digital image research standards by
offering a twice-yearly workshop entitled “Introduction to
using Digital Images in Science.” [11] This half-day workshop
introduces members of the campus community to basic digital
image concepts such as: pixels, voxels, bit depth, color, CCD
cameras, noise, sampling, digital filters, file formats, monitor
calibration, and data presentation. In addition to lectures,
these concepts, as well as common image processing pitfalls,
are demonstrated using Adobe Photoshop. A twelve-point list
of guidelines for the proper acquisition and manipulation of
scientific digital images [12] is presented at the workshop, with
each presenter intentionally reiterating several of the guidelines.
The goal is to impress upon the attendees that scientific digital
imaging is not as simple as they may have thought and that
great care must be taken when working with digital image data.
After the workshop, the presenters make themselves available
as a resource to the campus community. The workshop outline
is available online [13].
	 The twelve guidelines are available to the microscopy
community as a training tool at the “Online Learning Tool for
Research Integrity and Image Processing.” [14] The site explains
the rationale behind each of the specific guidelines in an
outline format. The website includes instructional videos and
an interview with Dale Benos, formerly editor-in-chief for the
American Journal of Physiology: Cell Physiology.
	 The continuing problem of inappropriately manipulated
images indicates that a greater effort must be made to educate
the scientific community. Microscopists in responsible
positions should take up the challenge to teach their colleagues,
and especially their trainees, about appropriate ways to work
with digital images.
References
[1] DW Cromey, J Sci Eng Ethics (2009, in press).
[2] MT Rossner et al., CBE Views 21(6) (1998) 187-192.
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
doi: 10.1017/S1551929509000431 www.microscopy-today.com • 2009 September72
[3] M Rossner and KM Yamada, J Cell Biol 166 (2004) 11-15.
[4] Microscopy Society of America, Microscopy Today 11(6)
(2003) 61.
[5] Definition of Research Misconduct, U.S. Dept. of Health
and Human Services, Office of Research Integrity, http://ori.
dhhs.gov/misconduct/definition_misconduct.shtml.
[6] J Krueger, presentation given to the National Press Club,
Washington, DC (17 April 2008).
[7] JR Young, Chronicle of Higher Education (8 June 2008) A1,
A10-11.
[8] G Cook, “Technology seen abetting manipulation of
research,” (11 January 2006) Boston Globe.
[9] E Abraham et al., Proc Am Thoracic Soc 5 (2008) 869.
[10] DE Wright et al., J Sci Eng Ethics 14 (2008) 323-336.
[11] Carl Boswell, David Elliott, Charles Hedgcock, and
Douglas Cromey.
[12] DW Cromey, (2001, modified in 2004, 2006) “Digital
Imaging: Ethics,” http://swehsc.pharmacy.arizona.edu/exppath/
micro/digimage_ethics.php.
[13] http://imaging.arizona.edu/workshop/
[14] S Vollmer, “Online Learning Tool for Research Integrity
and Image Processing” (2008). http://www.uab.edu/
researchintegrityandimages (Funded by ORI).
Mr. Cromey is supported by NIEHS ES006694.
Opinion
Thin Films - Photolithogrphy - Precision CNC Machining - Custom Tooling
Custom Electronics - Flip Chip Services - Flip Chip Tooling - FC 150
www.arcnano.com
OEM and Custom FIB Apertures
design your Custom Aperture at
www.arcapertures.com
Advanced Research Corporation 651 789 9000
SEM - FIB - IC Edit - AFM - Analytical Services - Failure Analysis - Testing
sponsors the
See the editorial on page 5 for a
description of these awards.
2010
MT-10 Awards
for
Microscopy Innovation
Volume 17
Number 5 2009 September
www.m
icrosco
py-today.com
Modified
A