PerspectivesAre you interested in submitting a Perspective Article? Be sure to read The Science Advisory Board's Editorial Guides for Perspective Articles. Click here. Excerpts from “Preventing Scientific Misconduct” by Douglas L. Weed, M.D., Ph.D. When a case of serious scientific misconduct comes to light, reactions from scientists, legislators, journal editors, and the press are often swift and impassioned, reflecting the importance of a problem that strikes at the heart of the scientific enterprise. Science, after all, is a search for the truth. Misconduct, especially in the form of falsification and fabrication, is its exact antithesis. Biomedical science seems especially vulnerable to the serious consequences forecast by those involved in the extended discussion: Congressional oversight could become a reality, public trust could fray, and perhaps most ominous of all, patients could be harmed. Few authors agree on the occurrence of scientific misconduct, due to differing definitions and mostly to difficulties in measurement. Estimates vary widely. Nevertheless, nearly everyone agrees that preventing scientific misconduct is a worthy goal. It is important to distinguish between error and misconduct. Science makes progress because error exists, in measurement and in interpretation of evidence. But these are unintentional errors. Misconduct involves intentional misrepresentation and misappropriation. To put the relationship of error to misconduct in perspective, it may be helpful to consider scientists' conduct to range across a continuum from forms of serious misconduct to deceptive reporting practices and beyond these to what might best be called sloppiness. At the other end of the continuum lies appropriate scientific and professional conduct including unintentional error. A Framework for Prevention Preventing scientific misconduct is a widely recognized goal (1, 2-6). Its attainment may require that we consider misconduct a professional affliction amenable to both primary and secondary prevention efforts. The implications of such an analysis have not been carefully examined. Primary Prevention of Scientific Misconduct Primary prevention is typically conceived as identifying and removing causes of events and as identifying factors whose presence (rather than absence) actively reduces the occurrence of those events. Frequently proposed causes of scientific misconduct fall into two categories overlapping those mentioned above, and in some cases overlapping each other. There are causes external to the individual scientist, such as publication pressure (7, 8-11), competition (12, 13), the large size of science (reducing opportunities for effective mentoring) (11, 12), and mentors setting bad examples (13). There are also internal causes, such as personal financial gain (14, 15), ego or vanity (4-6), and psychiatric illness (4, 14). The most frequently proposed causes of misconduct are publication pressure and competition. However, it is not clear how reducing--much less eliminating--them would reduce scientific misconduct without also reducing some of that which makes science the rigorous and productive enterprise it has become. Perhaps it is a matter of degree. Indeed, for reducing publication pressure, suggested interventions typically involve emphasizing quality over quantity in academic appointments and promotions as well as eliminating honorary authorship (11). Although these are reasonable proposals, they may have little impact on the publication pressure inherent in science. Ineffective mentoring due to the large size of science--another proposed external cause of scientific misconduct--reflects the idea that having too few senior scientist mentors relative to the number of junior scientists reduces the ability to monitor the (mis)behavior of those mentored. Nor can good examples be set if there are too few mentors. In either case, recommendations to increase opportunities for mentoring by increasing the ratio of senior to junior scientists seem reasonable assuming resources are available. Nevertheless, providing more mentors and providing good mentors may not be equivalent. Indeed, bad mentoring (a proposed external cause of scientific misconduct) and the proposed internal causes of personal financial gain and vanity--which Kassirer combined into one "fame and fortune viper"(5)--together reveal an implicit claim regarding the etiology of scientific misconduct: that many scientists, by ignorance or design, are seriously unskilled in ethics if not morally bankrupt. Indeed, from descriptions of some cases, it is reasonable to wonder if scientific misconduct is a product of scientists whose character is basically flawed. To what extent, then, can ethics training shore up what has either eroded or was never planted: a coherent and useful professional scientific ethic? An oft-cited approach to teaching ethics within the context of scientific misconduct involves codes of responsible conduct, i.e. rules or guidelines for good (appropriate) scientific and professional practice (1, 4). Yet, teaching ethics as a set of rules has some fundamental problems, just as teaching science as a set of rules for the laboratory or for the computer would be seriously deficient. In any professional scientific practice there are thousands of decisions not covered in the rules. In addition, there is the issue (at least in ethics) of what kind of individual follows rules in the first place. Ethics, like science, has its theories and methodologies beyond the rules which help to interpret the rules and to guide practice where the rules are missing (15, 16). Which of these theories and methods will prove most helpful as a foundation for preventing scientific misconduct is an important question, given the prominent theoretical plurality in contemporary bioethics. Secondary Prevention of Scientific Misconduct In the classic public health model, secondary prevention involves early detection of disease events coupled with effective treatment. For the secondary prevention of scientific misconduct, early detection involves increasing opportunities for discovering instances of misconduct and "treatment" refers to the sanctions delivered to those responsible for the misconduct. Auditing is the most obvious strategy for finding instances of scientific misconduct although less drastic measures have been suggested: periodic review of scientific records, publications, and work loads (4, 7, 17). Increasing the ratio of senior to junior scientists, discussed previously, also is a form of secondary prevention inasmuch as one role for the mentor is to monitor the (mis)behavior of junior colleagues. These approaches to early detection require the concomitant acceptance of responsibility on the part of institutions, their leaders, and especially on the part of working scientists. This is a responsibility to do something about scientific misconduct. Perhaps the most difficult responsibility is to report misconduct perpetrated by colleagues; small wonder so many authors recommend protection for "whistle-blowers" (18, 19). Institutionalization of investigative procedures for handling cases of alleged misconduct is also often recommended. On moral grounds, due process is essential to an institutional review process in the same way that informed consent is an essential part of medical research. Fair and public investigative procedures provide a structure for judging the facts of the case so that appropriate penalties--the "treatment"--can be meted out (20). Kassirer (5) mentions "how much trouble and disgrace are entailed in misconduct investigations," effects that apply not only to those found guilty but also to those wrongly accused (21, 22). The regular reports of the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) detail common sanctions against those convicted of misconduct: ineligibility for federal funding, a serious punishment for any scientist dependent upon outside funds for their livelihood. At least one journal has published sanctions to be meted out to authors involved in inappropriate acts (23); fabrication, for example, brings a penalty of “two years to life” during which time the author may not submit a manuscript for consideration [and others have subsequently followed this example]. A [important] legal case involving theft of intellectual property resulted in a monetary award of just over three million dollars to the plaintiff (24). Summary In disease prevention frameworks, a category of tertiary prevention is sometimes included, which typically involves rehabilitation and other aspects of long term care. Tertiary prevention can also be applied to scientific misconduct, inasmuch as those who commit such deeds may require rehabilitative efforts before they return to scientific practice. A more complete analysis will likely lead, as it did in the case of primary and secondary prevention, to questions with answers based on relatively little empirical information. For example, we have no reliable information on the extent to which those who have committed misconduct respond positively to rehabilitative efforts. Indeed, looking back over the foregoing analysis, a host of such questions have emerged. Answers will be difficult to obtain especially if precise scientific methodologies are to be employed. But then we are scientists and solving difficult empirical problems is what we do best. Perhaps the essential question is less methodological than it is motivational: are we as scientists willing to study our conduct as scientists? If so, then one day we may discover why we suffer from an important and sometimes disabling professional affliction and what works to prevent it. I am not suggesting, however, that we should postpone interventions until we fully understand the etiology, including the underlying biological, behavioral, and social mechanisms involved in the range of activities we call scientific misconduct. We need fair investigative procedures. We can accept (perhaps on faith) that the discussion of the role of ethics in the conduct of science and medicine (25) should be expanded. Formal courses on ethics should be a part of research training programs and these courses should be evaluated. Those of us who act as mentors can and should conduct ourselves virtuously (26). For the sake of those we train and especially for those whose lives are improved by our scientific results, we must exhibit excellence, self-effacement, and perhaps above all, an unwavering commitment to the truth. ### Douglas L. Weed, M.D., Ph.D. Chief, Preventive Oncology Branch National Cancer Institute and Senior Research Fellow Kennedy Institute of Ethics Georgetown University Excerpted from “Preventing Scientific Misconduct” American Journal of Public Health 1998;88:125-129. References 1. Gunsalus CK. Institutional structure to ensure research integrity. Acad Med 1993; 68:S33-8. 2. Mishkin L. Fraud is a symptom of a deeper flaw. The Scientist 1988; 9&12. 3. Angell M, Relman AS. Fraud in biomedical research: a time for Congressional restraint. NEJM 1988; 318:1462-3. 4. Fraud and misconduct in medical research: causes, investigation, and prevention. A Report of the Royal College of Physicians. London: RCP, 1991. 5. Kassirer JP. The frustrations of scientific misconduct. NEJM 1993; 1634-6. 6. Dingell JD. Shattuck Lecture: Misconduct in medical research. NEJM 1993; 328:1610-15. 7. Lock S. Misconduct in medical research: does it exist in Britain? Brit Med J 1988; 297:1531-5. 8. Angell M. Publish or perish: a proposal. Ann Intern Med 1986; 261-2. 9. Woolf PK. Pressure to publish and fraud in science. Ann Intern Med 1986; 104:254-6. 10. Andersen D, Attrup L, Axelsen N, Riis P. Scientific dishonesty and good scientific practice. Copenhagen: Danish Medical Research Council. 1992. 11. Danforth WH, Schoenhoff DM. Fostering integrity in scientific research. Acad Med 1992; 67:351-6. 12. Petersdorf RG. The pathogenesis of fraud in medical science. Ann Intern Med 1986; 104:252-4. 13. Alberts B, Shine K. Scientists and the integrity of research. Science 1994; 266:1660-1. 14. Woolf P. Fraud in Science: How much, how serious?. Hastings Cent Rep 1981; 11:9-14. 15. Beauchamp TL. Moral foundations. In: Ethics and epidemiology. Coughlin SS, Beauchamp TL (eds), New York: Oxford, 1996; 24-52. 16. Peach L. An introduction to ethical theory. In: Research ethics. Penslar RL (ed), Bloomington: Indiana Univ, 1995; 13-26. 17. Shapiro MF, Charrow RP. The role of data audits in detecting scientific misconduct: results of the FDA program. JAMA 1989; 261:2505-11. 18. Integrity and misconduct in research: Report of the Commission on Research Integrity. USDHHS, PHS, 1995, USGPO 1996-746-425. 19. Edsall JT. Two aspects of scientific responsibility. Science 1981; 212:11-14. 20. Friedman PJ. Research ethics, due process, and common sense. JAMA 1988; 260:1937-8. 21. Silbergeld EK. Protection of the public interest, allegations of scientific misconduct, and the Needleman case. Am J Public Health 1995; 85:165-7. 22. Needleman HC. Salem comes to the NIH: notes from inside the crucible of scientific integrity. Pediatrics 1992; 90:977-81. 23. Specific inappropriate acts in the publication process. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 174:1-9. 24. Taubes G. Scientific misconduct: plagiarism suit wins; experts hope it won't set a trend. Science 1995; 268:1125. 25. Reiser SJ. Overlooking ethics in the search for objectivity and misconduct in science. Acad Med 1993; 68: S84-7. 26. Pellegrino ED. Character and the ethical conduct of research. In: Accountability in Research 1992; 2:1-11. ### << Previous Next >> [ View All Perspectives ] |
|
