Fraud, misconduct or normal science in medical research--an empirical study of demarcation

OBJECTIVES

To study and describe how a group of senior researchers and a group of postgraduate students perceived the so-called "grey zone" between normal scientific practice and obvious misconduct.

DESIGN

A questionnaire concerning various practices including dishonesty and obvious misconduct. The answers were obtained by means of a visual analogue scale (VAS). The central (two quarters) of the VAS were designated as a grey zone.

SETTING

A Swedish medical faculty.

SURVEY SAMPLE

30 senior researchers and 30 postgraduate students.

RESULTS

Twenty of the senior researchers and 25 of the postgraduate students answered the questionnaire. In five cases out of 14 the senior researchers' median was found to be clearly within the interval of the grey zone, compared with three cases for the postgraduate students. Three examples of experienced misconduct were provided. Compared with postgraduate students, established researchers do not call for more research ethical guidelines and restrictions.

CONCLUSION

Although the results indicate that consensus exists regarding certain obvious types of misconduct the response pattern also indicates that there is no general consensus on several procedures.

Academic misconduct among nursing students: a multivariate investigation

The purpose of the study was to determine the degree to which several independent variables correlate with perceived instance of academic misconduct among nursing students. Maslow's Need-Goal Motivation Model served as the guiding framework for the study. It was postulated that nursing students' perceptions of their peers' maturity, academic commitment, and neutralizing attitude would be correlated with perceptions of their peers' involvement in various forms of academic misconduct. Results indicated a moderately high degree of correlation exists among the variables (Function I Rc2 = 0.325; p < .001).

Is intellectual dishonesty becoming socially acceptable?

Images

[Dishonesty in medical research. A questionnaire study among project administrators in Health Region 4]

During the period 1986-92, a questionnaire survey was conducted among research project administrators whose study protocols were assessed by the ethical committee for biomedical research in Health region 4 (Central Norway). The questions referred to the scientists' attitudes towards medical research ethics in general, and their views on the work of the committee. They were also asked to comment on seven statements about scientific fraud and misconduct. This paper presents data on misconduct from the 119 scientists who completed the questionnaire, i.e 70% of the 159 recipients. Some 40% claimed that scientific fraud is a problem in Norway, but 46% maintained that it is less so than in other countries. More than every fourth researcher (27%) knew of one or more cases of scientific misconduct, 42% stated that their knowledge was not publicly known. 18% felt that they had been exposed to misconduct themselves. A majority (60%) stated that a better system is needed to investigate claims of scientific fraud. The authors discuss these findings in relation to the personal characteristics and scientific qualifications of the researchers, and the current knowledge about the extent of scientific fraud in medicine.

A new perspective on scientific misconduct

The level of social concern about any form of deviance reveals much about the society that disapproves of the behavior. In that light, why has scientific misconduct recently received so much public attention and opprobrium? Inquiring into this and related areas raises questions about the changing relationship between science and society. Rising concern about scientific misconduct may indicate that the state and other powerful actors see the value of science clearly, a perception perhaps intensified by a growing reliance upon science, the value of science as a resource for power, and the resulting desire of powerful social groups to control science. An important factor is the increased importance science has acquired within organizations (such as universities and businesses), requiring scientists to engage in more intense interactions with the professionals who work there, including lawyers, accountants, public relations specialists, and administrators. In itself, this tighter coupling of science to other social and organizational purposes would be expected to increase scrutiny and the likelihood of interventions. Also, this more frequent contact makes competition for dominance between professions more likely. Policies might be devised to renegotiate the relationship between science and society in a way that might alleviate the "pathogenic pressures" in the present environment. Specifically, the author suggests eight changes, including reducing and redistributing the financial rewards immediately available to scientists, their companies, and their universities by installing a form of "escrow" account to hold profits for a fixed period of time; decoupling graduate student and postdoctoral support from research grants; and resisting the trend to replace intrinsic rewards and controls with extrinsic ones.

Innovation and integrity in biomedical research

Science's reputation for purity suffered two major setbacks in the past ten years: scientists' capability to regulate themselves came into serious question; and burgeoning entanglements between universities and industry created additional incentives for misconduct in research. In this article, the author seeks to shift attention from compliance to the definition of the standards themselves and to suggest that there is less agreement about acceptable norms of behavior than is commonly supposed among critics of science. Further, this lack of clarity is in part a consequence of the fragmentation of research communities at the forefront of science. Contrary to popular misconception, there is no abstract, universal "scientific method" that guides practice in all situations. The most promising way to deal with criticisms of scientists' integrity is to recast the problem of scientific integrity as one of prospectively creating acceptable research practices rather than retrospectively finding and applying them. To achieve conditions that foster integrity, however, will require more than teaching research ethics to graduate students or educating senior scientists in better mentoring. Instead, the culture of science will need to confront and, where necessary, dismantle the structural barriers to collegiality in research. As now organized, science is organized as a winner-take-all game, with no glory or comfort for the also-ran. Would a more collaborative science produce as many dazzling results? The burden of proof rests with those who want to change the present system, but with the public image of science hanging in the balance, the time may be ripe for taking up the challenge.

Problems in research integrity arising from misconceptions about the ownership of research

Many allegations of scientific misconduct result from activities that are perceived by the complainants as the "theft" of ideas, experimental results, or other intellectual property. The authors' thesis is that many of these allegations originate in misconceptions about the ownership of publicly supported scientific research. Some universities and medical schools may have their own codes for authorship, and journals and professional societies have codes or guidelines. In the NIH intramural programs, research data are considered to be the property of the institutes, not the individual researchers. In contrast, the training and experience of most scientists lead them to consider research data as being theirs. The paper discusses the origins of this attitude toward data and the ways that the structures of university laboratories and training programs lead to confusion and misunderstandings of researchers' "rights" to data. Also, emotional and personality factors often complicate these issues and lead to confrontations. Other misconceptions widely held among researchers: the false concepts of "my grant" and the "co-principal" investigator, ideas about who is and is not qualified to be an author, and ideas about sharing data. The authors emphasize the importance of scientifically literate legal advisers and the necessity for graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and professors to understand their institutions' and grantors' guidelines and their obligations as scientists. At the heart of these obligations at all levels of research is honesty.

Sanctions and remediation for research misconduct: differential diagnosis, treatment, and prevention

The last decade of experience indicates that the number of confirmed instances of research misconduct remains extremely small. Yet, each institution that has had an investigation recognizes how damaging even one case is to the scientific enterprise in terms of the morale of scientists working with or near the one found guilty, in terms of public trust in the research enterprise, and in terms of the consumption of extraordinary amounts of faculty effort to conduct a fair and thorough investigation of the allegation. Every research institution has a strong interest in developing its diagnostic, treatment, and preventive capacities to the point where this scientific illness is as nearly eradicated as possible. The author suggests a spectrum of responses to match the spectrum of offenses in order to protect the scientist, the scientific community, the institution, and the public. In some instances remediation as well as sanctions may be indicated. Remediation in this context applies both to the scientist and to the research institution because both may have problems that need correction or modification to ensure the integrity of science. Institutional improvement in developing and applying sanctions and remediation should contribute both to more effective treatment and to better prevention strategies.

Deviance in the practice of science

The author discusses misconduct in biomedical research in terms of research about deviance. The ancient mantle of the sacred was transferred in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century from religious institutions to the scientists and the universities that they came to dominate. Universities were engaged in the pursuit of truth; and when science came to dominate universities, they became the hallowed ground of science. Many younger scientists consider that theirs is professional work like any other, but the general public, journalists, and policymakers still consider that scientists who break the rules are guilty of heinous offenses (violations of a sacred trust). This explains in part the different reactions of scientists and the public to recent scandals involving medical researchers. One of the most important points about deviance among scientists is the need to distinguish between rules imposed on the actor and rules that the individual is personally committed to. As government funding has come to dominate biomedical research, scientists have become part of huge bureaucratic entities with values, policies, and views often at variance from those of the scientific community. Increasingly, scientists find conflict between the values and mores of their community and the rules and mores of the federal and university bureaucracies that control modern science. Scientists can come to feel that they can violate the bureaucrats' rules and still be highly principled because they do not violate the values of science. The danger is that, by a process of drift, they can come to violate increasingly important, even primary, values of science.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Utilizing research assistants and maintaining research integrity

The appropriate use and supervision of research assistants is essential to the success of a research study and the avoidance of academic misconduct. The focus of this article is to provide guidelines for the new principal investigator regarding hiring, contracting, orienting, monitoring, and evaluating research assistants. Particular attention is given to techniques that will avoid academic misconduct resulting from research assistants being uninformed or unsupervised.

Disreputable science: definition and detection

This paper describes definitions of fraud and misconduct as disreputable science. Some causes and methods of detection of scientific misconduct are identified. These hallmarks of credibility are essential for nursing to advance as a science.

On competence and ethicality in psychodiagnostic assessment

To function competently, psychodiagnosticians must have an accurate sense of what their tests can and cannot do. To function ethically, they must act accordingly--expressing only opinions that are consonant with the current status of validity data. Psychologists who extol tests as doing more than is commonly known they can or who denigrate them as doing less than is commonly known they can are behaving unethically.