Research misconduct,NSF v NIH: Its nature and prevalence and the impact of their respective methods of investigation and adjudication

ABSTRACT

The National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have established separate administrative mechanisms for investigation and adjudication of alleged research misconduct.

This report compares research misconduct at NSF and NIH and the possible effects of their respective methods of investigation and adjudication.

Notable and paradoxical findings were identified: NIH supported four times the number of grants as NSF, yet NSF reviewed 2.5 times the number of research misconduct reports. NSF faculty were two-times more likely to be found guilty (88%) than faculty at NIH (42%). 83.6% of NSF offenders were guilty of plagiarism, vs. 4.8% at NIH. NSF trainees made up 6% of the guilty, vs. 42% at NIH. These findings are most likely related to the nature of their respective sciences, scientists, and the nature of their publications.

Investigative policies and procedures are quite similar at these two agencies with the exception of the subpoena power available to the NSF’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) where it would be infrequently utilized in investigations of its predominant offense, plagiarism. However, it could prove useful if made available to the NIH Office of Research Integrity (ORI) for investigations of fabrication/falsification, its most common offense. Federal criteria for prosecution should be modified to increase the likelihood of prosecution of serious offenders referred by ORI.     

Forensic Examination of Questioned Scientific Images

This paper discusses the Office of Research Integrity's (ORI) experience from its oversight review of institutional scientific misconduct cases involving questioned images, provides illustrative examples of computer image processing techniques with an explanation of how the image analysis contributed to the final misconduct determination in specific cases, and reports a compilation of some generic features of 35 ORI cases (1989-2001). The absolute and the relative incidence of cases with questioned images has increased over the last decade, as has the use of computers for presentation of the questioned image data. To date, ORI has seen no cases of de novo fabrication of images, and fortunately, in most cases the appearance of the questioned image has been quite secondary to the original basis for challenging its authenticity. The survey of cases indicates that good laboratory practices and, notably, attention to mentoring could have minimized the scope of the scientific misconduct when the act of falsification occurred.     

On the potential cost effectiveness of scientific audits

The rationale for the routine performance of scientific audits has been previously discussed, and it has been proposed that independent professionals audit scientific data just as certified public accountants in independent public accounting firms audit financial data (1–4). Scientific audits would typically require the examination of data in laboratory notebooks and other work sheets, upon which research publications are based. Examples of such audits have been publicized recently, although these represent audits which have been conducted relatively inefficiently, over periods of several years per audit, and which have only been conducted due to the persistence of whistleblowers suspecting scientific fraud (5, 6). A detailed report has also appeared on the results of an audit of the research activities of a particular individual, where the audit was limited solely to an examination of the research publications themselves for errors and discrepancies (7). It should be emphasized that the purpose of conducting scientific audits is not only to detect fabrication of experimental results but also to monitor presumably more prevalent, non‐fraudulent, inappropriate practices, such as misrepresentation of data, inaccurate reporting, and departure from institutional guidelines for handling hazardous materials, working with human subjects, etc.

Two concerns which have been raised concerning the performance of scientific audits relate to cost. What would they cost, and who would pay for them? These questions, however, may be turned around. What does it cost not to conduct such audits, and who pays for that? An assumption often made is that science is self‐correcting, that sooner or later the truth will be revealed because of the need to replicate experiments of others for independent verification of novel findings (8). Testimony recently presented at a U.S. congressional hearing suggests that the self‐correcting manner in which science advances represents a very slow and inefficient process for uncovering scientific fraud (5, 6, 9). Data from a survey of university scientists was also presented, indicating “. . . a reluctance to take prompt, corrective action not only when an investigator suspects another of misconduct but also should the investigator discover flaws in his or her own published reports‐whether the flaws were the result of honest error or fraud”; (10).

The uncritical acceptance by established scientists that the self‐correcting process works compounds the problem. The Editor of Science has written that”;. . . 99.9999 percent of reports are accurate and truthful. . .”; (8). If indeed only 0.0001% of published reports were inaccurate or untruthful, there would be little justification for scientific audits. However, congressional testimony from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) revealed that”;. . . the NIH Director's office has handled an average of 15–20 allegations and reports of misconduct annually in its extramural programs, which supports the work of approximately 50,000 scientists”; (11). As I shall attempt to demonstrate, since NIH alone receives fraud‐related complaints concerning the work of at least 0.03% of scientists it supports in other institutions, and since evidence indicates that the incidence of fraud is considerably greater than 0.03% (10, 12), the need to audit data is justifiable on the basis of being cost effective.     

A new approach to care proceedings

A new approach to care proceedings, introduced in April 2008 with revised Children Act 1989 Guidance Volume 1 and the Public Law Outline (PLO), a procedural guide for the courts, adds a semi‐formal pre‐proceedings stage. This paper critiques the aims and objectives of the pre‐proceedings process in the light of what is known about the families who become subject to care proceedings. Drawing on the Care Profiling Study, the analysis of a random sample of 386 court files for care proceedings brought in 2004 and the Ministry of Justice's preliminary study of the operation of care proceedings under the PLO, it questions whether formalizing communication between the local authority and the parents immediately before proceedings can produce the intended benefits of diverting cases from the courts and improving the preparation of court applications. It considers how the new processes fit with existing safeguarding and planning procedures, the impact on workers and families, and whether the procedures will help produce good, long‐term arrangements for children at risk of significant harm more quickly.     

Scientific misconduct: Undue process

Numerous professional societies, universities, research funding sources, federal agencies, and Congressional committees have expressed concern about an apparent increasing incidence of scientific misconduct. Many of these organizations also have published standards for defining such misconduct and their procedures for investigating allegations of scientific misconduct. The futility of these procedures is illustrated by an example of blatant data falsification and fabrication in two different research projects conducted by a single researcher. The problem derives from administrative and judicial systems which have evolved to a stage where they are more concerned with process than outcome. An alternative to the resulting interminable “due process”; of the present system is tentatively suggested.     

Misconduct versus Honest Error and Scientific Disagreement

Researchers sometimes mistakenly accuse their peers of misconduct. It is important to distinguish between misconduct and honest error or a difference of scientific opinion to prevent unnecessary and time-consuming misconduct proceedings, protect scientists from harm, and avoid deterring researchers from using novel methods or proposing controversial hypotheses. While it is obvious to many researchers that misconduct is different from a scientific disagreement or simply an inadvertent mistake in methods, analysis or misinterpretation of data, applying this distinction to real cases is sometimes not easy. Because the line between misconduct and honest error or a scientific dispute is often unclear, research organizations and institutions should distinguish between misconduct and honest error and scientific disagreement in their policies and practices. These distinctions should also be explained during educational sessions on the responsible conduct of research and in the mentoring process. When researchers wrongfully accuse their peers of misconduct, it is important to help them understand the distinction between misconduct and honest error and differences of scientific judgment or opinion, pinpoint the source of disagreement, and identify the relevant scientific norms. They can be encouraged to settle the dispute through collegial discussion and dialogue, rather than a misconduct allegation.     

Misconduct versus honest error and scientific disagreement

Researchers sometimes mistakenly accuse their peers of misconduct. It is important to distinguish between misconduct and honest error or a difference of scientific opinion to prevent unnecessary and time-consuming misconduct proceedings, protect scientists from harm, and avoid deterring researchers from using novel methods or proposing controversial hypotheses. While it is obvious to many researchers that misconduct is different from a scientific disagreement or simply an inadvertent mistake in methods, analysis or misinterpretation of data, applying this distinction to real cases is sometimes not easy. Because the line between misconduct and honest error or a scientific dispute is often unclear, research organizations and institutions should distinguish between misconduct and honest error and scientific disagreement in their policies and practices. These distinctions should also be explained during educational sessions on the responsible conduct of research and in the mentoring process. When researchers wrongfully accuse their peers of misconduct, it is important to help them understand the distinction between misconduct and honest error and differences of scientific judgment or opinion, pinpoint the source of disagreement, and identify the relevant scientific norms. They can be encouraged to settle the dispute through collegial discussion and dialogue, rather than a misconduct allegation.     

MODELS OF ORGANIZATION AND COMMITMENT RATES IN JUVENILE COURTS

This paper uses national data to assess four models of organization that are claimed to account for the rates at which juvenile courts commit youth to institutions: parens patriae, community protection, organizational maintenance, and due process. It finds only three evenly stressed models, as a youth concern model combines elements of the due process and parens patriae orientations. None of the models bears a simple, statistically significant relation to commitment rates, but there are some interaction effects. It is suggested that social change and local pressures account for the differences between common assumptions and the actual pattern of relations.     

From Baltimore to Bell Labs: Reflections on Two Decades of Debate about Scientific Misconduct

This essay proposes a new definition of scientific "misconduct," which is broader than the definition recently adopted by the U.S. government. According to the proposed definition, misconduct is a serious and intentional violation of accepted scientific practices, commonsense ethical norms, or research regulations in proposing, designing, conducting, reviewing, or reporting research. Punishable misconduct includes fabrication of data or experiments, falsification of data, plagiarism, or interference with a misconduct investigation. Misconduct does not include honest errors, differences of opinion, or ethically questionable research practices.     

National Scientific Misconduct Policies in Argentina: Two Definitions of Research Misconduct

ABSTRACT

In “An International Study of Research Misconduct Policies”, Resnik et al. count Argentina in the list of countries without national research misconduct policies. In this paper, we clarify that Argentina has national policies of research misconduct and present the research misconduct definitions of two official science organisms: the National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET) and the Ethics Committee of the Argentine Ministry of Science (MINCyT).     

The role of culture in research misconduct

There seems to be a taboo against discussing the role culture or national origin might play in research misconduct. Still, some observers wonder why so many scientists representing foreign cultures are among those found guilty of misconduct. Even after examining the scant available data, whether foreign nationals are disproportionately represented among Office of Research Integrity (ORI) respondents remains unclear. The lack of data, however, does not negate culture as a possible explanatory variable in research misconduct. Applying theories from sociological criminology, the author posits that the culture some researchers bring may be at odds with the norms of academic science and may emphasize ends more than means. As such, culture simply may be one of several etiological factors in research misconduct and should be considered in the spirit of objective scientific inquiry. Acknowledging the role of culture in the adherence to research ethics underscores the importance of education and training of both researchers and administrators in the responsible conduct of research and cultural diversity.     

New Classification of Research Misconduct from the Viewpoint of Truth,Trust, and Risk

ABSTRACT

Fabrication, Falsification and Plagiarism (FFP) and Questionable Research Practice (QRP) have been used worldwide in the classification of research misconduct. However, FFP comprises two distinct categories of misconduct: FF is extreme research misconduct that betrays truth, while P undermines trust of science community. Irreproducibility and inadequate practice of research also betray trust. Research misconduct has the potential to cause serious risk of safety in daily life. The proposed classification system is outlined as follows: Class I misconduct: Betrayal of the truth: (1) Fabrication and (2) Falsification. Class II misconduct: Betrayal of trust: (1) Plagiarism of text ; Irreproducibility; and (3) Inadequate research practice. Class III misconduct: Risk to safety of health and industrial products: (1) Risk to safety of health and (2) Risk to safety of industrial products. The proposed classification reflects deeper values of truth, trust, and risk more directly than the previous classification and elucidates issues about nature and significance of misconduct.     

Ethical oxymora for risk assessment practitioners

We define working conditions faced by some practitioners of risk assessment that contradict their formal training and career expectations. Panels of expert risk scientists are used to assess the importance of these ethical oxymora. We offer recommendations aimed at helping risk scientists deal with these contradictions.

An oxymoron is a figure of speech combining contradictory ideas into a useful expression (e.g., sweet sorrow, silent thunder). In this paper we argue that some practitioners of quantitative risk assessment face working conditions that strongly contradict their professional ethos. In the first part of the paper, after briefly defining quantitative risk assessment, we describe four ethical oxymora faced by risk analysts. Second, we describe how we used panels of expert risk scientists to assess the importance of these ethical problems. We offer recommendations aimed at helping risk scientists deal with these oxymora in the last part.     

Statistics,ethics, and research: An agenda for education and reform

This essay argues that the research community needs to pay more attention to the appropriate use of statistical methods in discussions of research ethics, and proposes some strategies for enhancing discussions of the ethical uses of statistics within investigational, educational, and organizational settings. The essay supports its position by 1) explaining why statistics plays such a key role in research integrity, 2) describing how some common misuses of statistics in research violate ethical standards pertaining to honesty and error avoidance, and 3) reviewing evidence which suggests that the misuse of statistics is more prevalent (and perhaps more significant) than research misconduct (narrowly defined as “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism").     

Perceptions of research integrity and the Chinese situation: In-depth interviews with Chinese biomedical researchers in Europe

ABSTRACT

Research misconduct has been a threat to Chinese biomedical research. Despite many publications dealing with research integrity in China, little empirical data is available concerning Chinese biomedical researchers’ perceptions of research integrity and misconduct. To learn more about this issue, we interviewed Chinese biomedical researchers in Europe to investigate their perceptions of this issue. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 25 participants until data saturation was reached. The findings indicate that certain aspects of research integrity need elaboration among Chinese biomedical researchers. Participants had a vague understanding of general concepts related to research integrity. Data fabrication, data falsification and plagiarism were perceived as the most severe deviance. Inappropriate authorship (especially gift authorship) and ghost writing were regarded as the most prevalent types of research misconduct in Chinese biomedical research. The harms of certain practices, such as inappropriate authorship, salami publication and multiple submission, were not well recognized. Attitudes toward research misconduct were divided. The current scientific evaluation system, pressures of promotion, motives for fame and other factors were perceived as the main reasons for research misconduct. Participants suggested various measures in addition to existing safeguards to improve research integrity in Chinese biomedical research.     

Implementation of a responsible conduct of research education program at Duke University School of Medicine

Academic medical centers rarely require all of their research faculty and staff to participate in educational programs on the responsible conduct of research (RCR). There is also little published evidence of RCR programs addressing high-profile, internal cases of misconduct as a way of promoting deliberation and learning. In the wake of major research misconduct, Duke University School of Medicine (DUSoM) expanded its RCR education activities to include all DUSoM faculty and staff engaged in research. The program included formal deliberation of the Translational Omics misconduct case, which occurred at Duke. Over 5,000 DUSoM faculty and staff participated in the first phase of this new program, with a 100% completion rate. The article reports on the program’s development, challenges and successes, and future directions. This experience at Duke University illustrates that, although challenging and resource intensive, engagement with RCR activities can be integrated into programs for all research faculty and staff. Formal, participatory deliberation of recent cases of internal misconduct can add a novel dimension of reflection and openness to RCR educational activities.     

Assessing the Seriousness of Research Misconduct: Considerations for Sanction Assignment

Federal and institutional policies recommend the criterion of “seriousness” as a guide for sanction assignment in cases where researchers have been found to have committed research misconduct. Discrepancies in assessments of seriousness for similar acts of misconduct suggest the need to clarify what might be meant by the seriousness of research misconduct and how the criterion can be used to assign sanctions. This essay demonstrates how determinations of seriousness can differ depending on the set of ethical appeals employed and argues that an expanded lexicon for talking about the seriousness of research misconduct would help to promote fairness and consistency in sanction assignment. It concludes with some policy recommendations for those charged with research misconduct sanction assignment and for those who oversee research integrity at institutional levels.     

Assessing the seriousness of research misconduct: considerations for sanction assignment

Federal and institutional policies recommend the criterion of "seriousness" as a guide for sanction assignment in cases where researchers have been found to have committed research misconduct. Discrepancies in assessments of seriousness for similar acts of misconduct suggest the need to clarify what might be meant by the seriousness of research misconduct and how the criterion can be used to assign sanctions. This essay demonstrates how determinations of seriousness can differ depending on the set of ethical appeals employed and argues that an expanded lexicon for talking about the seriousness of research misconduct would help to promote fairness and consistency in sanction assignment. It concludes with some policy recommendations for those charged with research misconduct sanction assignment and for those who oversee research integrity at institutional levels.     

Tasting off-flavors: food science,sensory knowledge and the consumer sensorium

Abstract

In food science and technology, understanding off-flavors has a significance with both technical and commercial implications. In the food industry in the United States, it is a widely held truism that consumers will not buy a product if they do not like the way it tastes or if it contains unpleasant flavors. But how can science determine when food is off putting, and how do scientists learn to address bad tastes in their experimental and technical practice? Based on ethnographic work with food scientists in the United States, this paper is a reflexive account of learning to taste off-flavors, a form of sensory learning that utilizes the scientist’s own body as a kind of instrument. The paper argues that a particular understanding of the consumer sensorium emerges through food scientists’ approach to off-flavors. This is an image of the consumer as a chemically receptive sensory system that is highly sensitive to compounds at trace levels. By utilizing the sensitivity of their own senses, food scientists exploit the relationship between distaste, memory and sensory perception as a form of training to produce future aesthetic memories of off-flavors that can be deployed in a technical context.     

An International Study of Research Misconduct Policies

Research misconduct is an international concern. Misconduct policies can play a crucial role in preventing and policing research misconduct, and many institutions have developed their own policies. While institutional policies play a key role in preventing and policing misconduct, national policies are also important to ensure consistent promulgation and enforcement of ethical standards. The purpose of this study was to obtain more information about research misconduct policies across the globe. We found that twenty-two of the top forty research and development funding countries (55%) had a national misconduct policy. Four countries (18.2%) are in the process of developing a policy, and four (18.2%) have a national research ethics code but no misconduct policy. All twenty-two countries (100%) with national policies included fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism in the definition of misconduct, but beyond that there was considerable diversity. Unethical authorship was mentioned in 54.6% of the misconduct definitions, followed by unethical publication practices (36.4%), conflict of interest mismanagement (36.4%), unethical peer review (31.8%), misconduct related to misconduct investigations (27.3%), poor record keeping (27.3%), other deception (27.3%), serious deviations (22.7%), violating confidentiality (22.7%), and human or animal research violations (22.7%). Having a national policy was positively associated with research and development funding ranking and intensiveness. To promote integrity in international research collaborations, countries should seek to harmonize and clarify misconduct definitions and develop procedures for adjudicating conflicts when harmonization does not occur.