Repairing Research Integrity
Brendan Maher
Tuesday, 17 June 2008 18:51 UTC
Update (4 August): Nature just published a handful of letters in response to the commentary from Sandra Titus James Wells and Lawrence Rhoades.
Sandra Titus, James Wells and Lawrence Rhoades provide a stirring indictment of the research community in a commentary this week. Research integrity can’t be maintained if misconduct goes unreported, they say. And a survey they commissioned through the Office of Research Ingegrity indicates there could be as many as a thousand unreported instances of misconduct a year.
The authors promote a zero tolerance policy among institutions and make other recommendations. An editorial this week makes a broader call for change, recognizing that not all incidents require full on investigations with punitive action, it calls instead for enhanced structures to use instances of mistake and misconduct as learning experiences that might inform better policies.
How could better policies push back against this seeming flood of misconduct?
Updated 04 August 2008 19:22 UTC
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
Dear Art Smith,
My reading of David Lewis’s account is that it is about some journalism in Nature, plus an editorial (opinion), not about original research publications.That having been said, I agree that journals publishing research have a role in helping to stem scientific misconduct. One way of doing this is for the journals, with the scientific community, to develop editorial policies that are in broad agreement among the scientific communities that they cover, and that they can enforce (see here for the Nature journals’ policies, together with many (free access) editorials explaining the reasons for them). These policies have grown exponentially over the past 10 years or so, in response to the community in various ways, and cover a range of issues such as availability of data, what justifies a correction to the published record, bioethics, image manipulation, confidentiality, plagiarism and so on. Journals need to explain these policies to peer-reviewers, and the editors need to be aware of them.
However, a journal cannot police the scientific community. The peer-review system, for example, has to be based on the system being honest, as it cannot be designed to uncover fraud, that isn’t what it could do.
Journals have one very powerful approach, thanks to the Internet. In the “old days” journals could only print a correction. Now, if a journal publishes a paper which subsequently turns out to be erroneous in some way (whether or not due to misconduct), it can publish a bidirectionally linked correction or retraction. Hence the publication record is clearly marked, not just at the journal’s website but in web searches and in A&I databases too.
As most cases of misconduct will probably come to light after a paper is published, eg when others cannot repeat the experimental results, journals can do a lot to help by correcting the published record where appropriate (i.e. after fair investigation of the allegation, which often needs to include the funder and the employer, as well as independent peer-reviewers).
On a slightly different point, some of the comments here are from students who feel their supervisors have acted unethically in terms of data sharing or not. I also think that one needs to look at these cases from the other point of view: would the student have obtained these data without the supervisor or lab programme that existed before the student began the project? To what extent have others made intellectual contributions to a student’s (or anyone’s) results and conclusions?
-
Ms. Clark makes some great points with respect to journals and their debated role in policing the literature. I believe the burden, first and foremost, resides within the scientific community itself. It is impossible, for a number of reasons, for a journal to determine if data is pure. Journals can and should (and do) act promptly to disseminate news of misconduct investigations as well as to publish corrections and retractions.
-
The Chronicle for Higher Education reports on Columbia’s firing of a tenured professor due to plagiarism.
-
Anonymous
I want to respond to Maxine Clark’s statement,
" I also think that one needs to look at these cases from the other point of view: would the student have obtained these data without the supervisor or lab programme that existed before the student began the project? To what extent have others made intellectual contributions to a student’s (or anyone’s) results and conclusions?"
Also, I apologize if I am telling too much personal things on this board. Others, I think, are abusing this board to launch their own vendetta. I’m just trying to comment, and using my own experience. My full story is in the letters to the editor section on plagiary.org.
In my case, of course, I could not have done that research without my advisor’s lab or the school’s funding (my advisor never had money, no other grad students and no more post-docs). Vice versa is true — he could not have done my research without me. Every job I’ve had, and in grad school, and with non-profits I’ve worked with, I have initiated innovative ideas based on my own creativity and going through literature. When I need self esteem boosts, I Google my name and the city I used to live and find all the newspaper articles, awards, and organizations that I helped start that continue to go on. With my PhD research, I discovered that the methods he used for many years in a very specific field, were flawed, and that’s why none of the data correlated. I learned this by finding literature in other fields, like the food industry, and generating data that DID correlate.
So then the question arises, why didn’t I publish it? The answer, is because he harassed me and I had to cut off communication to avoid it. My advisor took no interest in my work and made no intellectual contribution to the new stuff I did. It showed, because when he lifted paragraphs from my dissertation for his solely authored paper, he lifted paragraphs that didn’t go together so his paper was flawed. As I wrote my PhD, he E-mailed me threatening me to start and complete an unrelated side project, for which I had no time for. Keep in mind, he did not fund me cause he had no money. I have a 27 page PDF file of these reprehensible E-mails from the person I trusted most in grad school.
At the same time, I had a job lined up. I was moving 1000 miles away and trying to find an apartment. I was selling my house. I was saying goodbye to family and friends. The non-profits I was involved with were surprising me with plaques and trophies to thank me for my work. I also volunteered to give a talk to the grad school on how I networked to find an industrial job. And all my advisor could do was send me E-mails with threats and namecalling (he missed my graduation too).
I consulted with my department head and dean, and consulted with “Boundaries” by Cloud and Townsend and “When I Say No, I Feel Guilty,” by Manuel J. Smith. He retaliated by replying to my E-mail by changing what I said and blind copying my other colleagues. That is why I did not give him my future contact information. The paper was rejected from a journal around then too. However, I don’t believe (others may disagree), that gives him a right to take my work. If I was a female, and I did not give him my future contact info to avoid harassment, would your opinion change on whether he could take my work because he didn’t know how to reach me? If I was a female and he made advances towards me, would your opinion change on whether hs had the right to take my work claiming he could not get hold of me?
6 months later, while I was employed, he found me and E-mailed me, again, with namecalling. I called the school’s integrity line and forwarded it to security, but never heard anything. This is when I should have registered my copyright. 6 months later, the draft with paragraphs from my dissertation (and rejected paper) appeared on the journal’s website. I also found other papers where he promised coauthorship in exchange for helping post-docs who didn’t write English well. I don’t care about those, because I don’t really meet the author guidelines.
Today, I am very happily employed at a place that has workplace harassment rules, where I work with people who are so interested in my ideas, and where, together, we’ve done great science that I am proud of. I was glad the university made that journal pull out my material for the final version, but disappointed the journal still keeps the draft on their website, insisting there was nothing wrong. I saw my advisor at a conference recently, and his presentation was awful; no clear purpose, citing papers from 10+ years ago, many of which had methods so flawed I didn’t even cite them in my dissertation. I am sad my work was not published, but I stood up to harassment and plagiarism and found my way to much greener pastures.
I did not mean to have such a verbose respond to Maxine’s question, but I wanted to expres my thoughts on the “other side.”
Plagiarized Grad Student
plagiarizedgradstudent@gmail.com -
Anonymous
There are many procedures we can do: 1) Institutions may have a special misconduct screening committee before any paper from this institution is submitted. This committee can be together with the office of scientific publication. 2) Journals send separate declaration of non-misconduct just like declaration of conflict of interest, and warn frankly by asking authors to sign. 3) PIs must be disciplined. It is extremely unethical to totally ruin junior trainees while PIs prosper. In all these types of investigations, PIs always have an up hand. PIs confiscate all the research results of trainees without even making primary observations. But when the plays become foul, PIs quit so nicely. Ah give me a minute to breathe. It is so terribly disgusting.
-
Regarding the feeback from Maxine Clarke concerning my comments about scientific fraud becoming institutionalized in the federal government, I was actually suggesting that editors do more than just address the issue in editorials and news items.
Government supported scientific fraud and retaliations against government whistleblowers are matters that merit particular attention.
In my own case recently covered by Nature (May 15, 2008; pp. 258; 262-3), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency used congressional earmarks to establish a cooperative agreement with industry to fund a national network of scientists to support its sewage sludge policies. The cooperative agreement specifically included efforts to discredit scientists such as myself who attempt to publish negative findings concerning EPA’s policies.
Under this agreement, EPA program office officials inundated the scientific literature with peer-reviewed scientific articles supporting its policies and eliminated government jobs and extramural funding for scientists such as myself who tried to document problems. In the end, EPA’s effort led to a body of science that is highly biased, even fraudulent in some cases, and largely excludes any opposing evidence.
Commenting on these problems, Nature described EPA’s sludge program as “an institutional failure spanning more than three decades – and presidential administrations of both parties.”
No reputable journal would publish a research article submitted by an employee of a private company about the downsides of a product manufactured by one of the company’s competitors. By analogy, the federal government produces products in the form of policies, guidelines, regulations, and services and has a strong interest in promoting and protecting these “products.”
There are specific steps that journal editors could take in dealing with the potential for conflicts of interest with government funded research. For example, the Federal Grants and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977 prohibits the federal government from using assistance agreements to support federal policies and regulations. It clearly conflicts with the public interest.
It would help, therefore, if journals that require authors to fully disclose financial conflicts of interest would also require authors to disclose any direct relationships between their research and the policies and other interests held by any government entities that funded the research.
-
To David Lewis, you write:
It would help, therefore, if journals that require authors to fully disclose financial conflicts of interest would also require authors to disclose any direct relationships between their research and the policies and other interests held by any government entities that funded the research.Thank you for this suggestion, which I will put on the agenda for the next Nature journal policy meeting, but at a glance it seems a very broad suggestion to me, in that your proposal seems to expect the scientist to know about agreements and other arrangements between their employers and other organizations. In other words, your suggestion almost seems to be that the employer declares an interest to the journal as well as the employee. This seems to be taking a definition of “research integrity” to a much broader degree than to the people who have done the work and written it up.
Nature journals’ current policies state:
… competing interests are defined as those of a financial nature that, through their potential influence on behaviour or content or from perception of such potential influences, could undermine the objectivity, integrity or perceived value of a publication.
They can include any of the following:Funding: Research support (including salaries, equipment, supplies, reimbursement for attending symposia, and other expenses) by organizations that may gain or lose financially through this publication.
Employment: Recent (while engaged in the research project), present or anticipated employment by any organization that may gain or lose financially through this publication.
Personal financial interests: Stocks or shares in companies that may gain or lose financially through publication; consultation fees or other forms of remuneration from organizations that may gain or lose financially; patents or patent applications whose value may be affected by publication.
-
To Maxine Clarke,
Your response is very encouraging.
What I’m proposing is narrowly aimed at disclosing conflicts of interests between authors and federal officials involved in funding their research. I believe it is within the scope of conflicts of interest outlined in Nature’s current policies.
Considering the immense resources and power vested in the federal government, the potential for corrupting and controlling the flow of scientific information is incalculable. The Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act recognizes this and embodies certain provisions designed to exclude potential conflicts of interest on the part of federal officials and the recipients of federal grants.
Questions developed by federal grants offices to discern violations of the FGCA Act must be answered by federal project officers as part of the grant application packages prior to approval. Some of these may be helpful additions to the list of questions that editors ask federally funded authors when manuscripts are submitted for publication. Grant officials ask, for example: “Was this grant solicited (by the federal agency)?” If so, then the grant was probably designed to benefit the federal office that solicited it and further questions should be asked.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency includes the following warning in grant application packages: “The Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act requires Federal agencies to use a contract to acquire property or services that directly benefit the Federal government. The direct beneficiary is the determining factor … If the direct beneficiary is EPA, then a contract is the appropriate legal instrument to use, and an SF-424 is not appropriate.”
To obtain federal funds, researchers must sign an SF-424 form stating that their grant complies with federal acquisition regulations. Researchers who sign application forms to accept federal funds and know, or should know, that the grant is being issued to directly benefit the federal government by supporting its policies or regulatory actions do so in violation of the FGCA Act and the federal False Claims Act as well.
In my case, EPA officials designed a grant to knowingly publish false and fabricated scientific data for the purpose of defending regulations that they developed as part of their official EPA duties. The published data were used to discredit my research linking sewage sludge to human illness and were introduced at trial in an attempt to defeat lawsuits by dairy farmers alleging cattle deaths and contamination of forage and food-chain crops.
In response, the dairy farmers and I filed a False Claims Act lawsuit against the EPA officials and university employees involved. Although these defendants acted in their official capacities as federal and state employees, a federal judge rejected their claims of immunity from prosecution. If our lawsuit is successful, the defendants will have to repay the U.S Treasury Department millions of dollars in illegally obtained federal funds – out of their own pockets.
Extensive court records in my case and the cattle cases show how a small group of EPA officials involved industry, other federal, state and local governments, Congress, the White House, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Foundation, and land grant universities from coast to coast to create a one-sided body of science to support a federal regulation dealing with land application of sewage sludge. A cooperative agreement between EPA and an industry trade association, which funded the effort with congressional earmarks, was developed after EPA’s Office of Research & Development determined that the Agency’s sludge regulation lacked any basis in science and was unlikely to be protective of public health and the environment.
These cases, which prompted hearings scheduled by the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works for September 2008, provide a basis for understanding the various approaches federal agencies and recipients of federal grants have devised to use the federal government’s vast resources and power to control and corrupt the scientific process. As I approach the end of our litigation, my assessment is that the amount of damage done to scientific integrity at the federal level at this point in time is probably beyond what any Branch of government possesses in the way of leadership skills and willpower to repair.
My feeling is that the only real hope of cleaning up the corruption of the scientific process that federal agencies have increasingly institutionalized and spread throughout academia lies with the editors of scientific journals. They are the Strait of Hormuz through which scientific information flows to the rest of the world. It keeps coming back to me at every turn that any editor looking at what EPA officials did to manipulate the science of sewage sludge could devise ways to detect this type of fraud and cut much of it off before it ever enters the scientific literature.
-
Sorry, late for the party:
Question: “How could better policies push back against this seeming flood of misconduct?”
Answer: Reduce the incentives!
Sorry if this has already been mentioned in the long comment thread. In this case: I concur with whoever posted it :-) -
Colleagues over at The Scientist blogged on a recent ruling of misconduct determined by the Office of Research Integrity. Several individuals commenting on the piece called for more serious sanctions on the errant scientist. Do you think that more serious sanctions (e.g. being barred from research funds or criminal prosecution) are warranted in cases like this?
Results
-
