According to this study, nearly 1 in 6 US scientists say that in the last 3 years they changed the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from a funding source, while more than 1 in 3 admitted some form of research wrongdoing.
An earlier UK study found that 1 in 3 scientists working for Government quangos or newly privatised laboratories said they had been asked to adjust their conclusions to suit the sponsor. (see item 2)
Pressure for success often lures researchers to fudge truth
By Steve Levin
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, , March 19, 2006
In November, University of Pittsburgh reproductive biologist Gerald P. Schatten found himself entangled in an investigation of scientific misconduct along with a stem-cell research collaborator in South Korea.
Renowned Korean researcher Hwang Woo-suk admitted manipulating laboratory samples to create fake DNA results for a paper -- co-authored by Dr. Schatten -- that claimed to have succeeded in embryonic stem-cell cloning.
[article continues below this box]
Top 10 [mis]behaviors
Percentage of 3,247 U.S. scientists who say that they engaged in the behavior listed between 2002 and 2005.
Changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from a funding source - 15.5%
Overlooking others' use of flawed data or questionable interpretation of data - 12.5%
Circumventing certain minor aspects of human-subject requirements - 7.6%
Failing to present data that contradict one's own previous research - 6.0%
Unauthorized use of confidential information in connection with one's own research - 1.7%
Using anothers ideas without obtaining permission or giving due credit - 1.4%
Relationships with students, research subjects or clients that may be interpreted as questionable - 1.4%
Not properly disclosing involvement in firms whose products are based on one's own research - 0.3%
Ignoring major aspects of human-subject requirements - 0.3%
Falsifying or cooking research data - 0.3%
The fraud staggered the worldwide scientific community because it occurred in the high-profile discipline of stem-cell research and involved Dr. Hwang, who carried the title of Supreme Scientist in Korea and was head of the world's leading stem cell research center.
But while the breadth of that case was unusual, the occurrence of scientific research misconduct is not.
A recent survey by HealthPartners Research Foundation in Minneapolis, Minn., of more than 3,400 early- and mid-level U.S. scientists funded by the National Institutes of Health showed that more than one-third of them admitted research wrongdoings between 2002 and 2005.
Only 1.5 percent of them admitted to the most serious misconduct of falsification or plagiarism.
And last year, the federal Office of Research Integrity in the Department of Health and Human Services received about 300 allegations of research misconduct last year, double the number from 2003.
Cheating, of course, occurs in all fields. But scientists and researchers?
"The temptations are huge," said Paul D. Tate, senior scholar in residence at the Council of Graduate Schools and director of its Responsible Conduct of Research initiative.
At a research lab where no one is looking over shoulders, a scientist who ignores anomalous results can produce career-boosting work.
"At the cutting edge of science," Dr. Tate said, "the rewards are huge and the temptation is greater."
Such was the case with Dr. Hwang. As first recipient of the title Supreme Scientist, he received $15 million from his government. That was in addition to about $27 million in international funding support he secured in 2005. His online fan club had 15,000 members.
Ethicists point to various reasons for cheating in the scientific community, among them mental illness, the unfamiliarity of foreign nationals with American research ethics, pressure to publish and the lackluster teaching of ethics in graduate schools.
Sometimes, researchers can be swept up in the misconduct of others or simply make missteps.
Dr. Schatten's case shows that the pressure to move forward on high-profile projects, combined with the difficulty of keeping track of research involving multiple teams in disparate locations, can make it difficult to steer clear of ethical lapses.
Dr. Schatten, who is director of the Pittsburgh Development Center and Magee-Womens Research Institute, was involved in laboratory-related misconduct investigations at both his previous university jobs prior to arriving at Pitt in mid-2001.
The first involved misappropriated eggs at the University of Wisconsin-Madison during 1993-94. Dr. Schatten, then a professor of zoology, molecular biology, and obstetrics and gynecology, used eggs for research that later were discovered to have been obtained illegally by a University of California-Irvine fertility clinic, from women without their consent.
In that case, two UC-Irvine physicians were charged by the federal government with mail fraud and conspiracy to defraud patients of their genetic material. Both fled the United States. A third UC-Irvine physician was convicted in 1998 of fraudulently billing insurance companies; he was fined $64,000 and sentenced to three years probation.
Additionally, more than 100 couples were paid nearly $20 million to settle their cases.
As far as Dr. Schatten's involvement, a University of Wisconsin investigation determined that he "unintentionally" received the misappropriated eggs.
"Jerry was very thoroughly investigated," said Alta Charo, a professor of law and medical ethics at Wisconsin and a member of the university team that investigated Dr. Schatten at the time.
"He did receive written documents that purported to be consent forms ... and relied upon those and had provided those to the appropriate oversight bodies."
Dr. Schatten left Wisconsin in 1998 for the Oregon National Primate Research Center, where he was research director of the Center for Women's Health, and a professor of obstetrics and gynecology, and cell and developmental biology.
There, he directed the researchers who in early 2001 produced the world's first genetically modified nonhuman primate, a transgenic monkey.
Later that year, the center's Institutional Biosafety Committee investigated Dr. Schatten for three "miscommunications" that included a misstatement to the committee about his research work. All three issues were remedied "in a relatively short period of time," a research center spokesman said
"They were fairly minor issues," said the spokesman, Jim Newman. "However, if they were not addressed so quickly, they would have been more serious issues."
Dr. Schatten has refused public comment since it was first reported in November that Dr. Hwang had fabricated data on the cloning of patient-specific stem cells. A Pitt inquiry last month concluded Dr. Schatten did not intentionally falsify stem-cell research information described in a paper that appeared last year in the journal Science. The article has since been retracted.
The committee did chide Dr. Schatten for his lack of judgment in allowing his listing as senior author of the discredited paper and recommended the university "implement whatever corrective or disciplinary actions are commensurate with [Dr. Schatten's] research misbehavior."
Such actions would be at the discretion of Arthur Levine, senior vice chancellor of health sciences, and would be kept confidential.
South Korean state prosecutors plan to announce the result of their investigation in Dr. Hwang's research fabrication this week.
Since 1992, the federal Office of Research Integrity has averaged about 11 findings of research misconduct annually. But with only 10 staff members to investigate allegations, the office closes only a small fraction of cases each year.
Glenn McGee, director of the Alden March Bioethics Institute at Albany Medical College, said a good way to reduce cheating would be to improve ethics teaching.
"The teaching of research ethics is today where the teaching of medical ethics was in the 1950s," said Dr. McGee, co-author of an article last month in Science on "Research Conduct: Lessons of the Stem Cell Scandal."
"We are worse at training scientists in research ethics than we are at any other forms of ethics training in any other field," he said. "It takes more ethics screening to adopt a cat than for new scientists."
At Pitt, an average of 5,000 grants are submitted each year to federal agencies, other governmental agencies and foundations. One-half to three-quarters of all the grants are submitted to the National Institutes of Health, the federal font of more than $200 billion in research grants each year.
The university requires all of its federally funded researchers to complete Web-based training in Research Practice Fundamentals.
According to Jerry Rosenberg, Pitt's research integrity officer, there were 10 cases of misconduct between 1996 and 2005. Five of the cases were reported to the federal Office of Research Integrity, which confirmed findings of research misconduct.
Ethicists disagree about the best way to prevent scientific cheating. Robert P. George, the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, believes it's a character issue.
"You won't prevent this kind of thing by simply making people more knowledgeable about the rules," he said.
But Dr. Tate from the Council of Graduate Schools thinks the problem can be "attacked" by awareness and education. An organization of more than 450 universities' graduate programs that award 90 percent of all U.S. doctoral degrees, CGS received a $300,000 grant from the National Science Foundation this month to develop research ethics training programs.
"If we're not going to change the culture of research, at least make ethical questions a lot more visible on the radar screen than they have been," said Dr. Tate.
"The goal is to keep research ethics on the agenda of graduate school students, deans and educators for a long period of time so that ethical issues in research do become a regular part of the landscape in graduate education."
MORE OF THE SAME
Scientists regularly 'asked to fix results for backer'
A report in Daily Telegraph, Monday 14 February 2000 on the impact of sponsorship on impartiality "ONE in three scientists working for Government quangos or newly privatised laboratories says he has been asked to adjust his conclusions to suit his sponsor."
Research into the funding of 10 papers on the alleged blood clotting risk of the third generation contraceptive pills found those funded by the pharmaceutical industry had discovered no risk, whereas those with other sources of funding claimed there was, he said.
Recent American research had also discovered links between studies which found passive smokin was not dangerous and the tobacco industry.
"These competing interests are very important," said Dr Smith [editor of the British Medical Journal]. "It has quite a profound influence on the conclusions and we deceive ourselves if we think science is wholly impartial."
LANCET: Corrupt Science-Business interface
This is about a $2 million concerted campaign to halt or undermine a scientific study on the dangers of passive smoking, targeting researchers, the media and government.
"All policymakers must be vigilant to the possibility of research data being manipulated by corporate bodies and of scientific colleagues being seduced by the material charms of industry. Trust is no defence against an aggressively deceptive corporate sector."
THE LANCET, April 2000 - commentary and Guardian article:
Go to a Print friendly Page
Email this Article to a Friend
Back to the Archive