How Many Scientists Fabricate And Falsify Research?

The so-called "missing link" Ida

[After the flap over the “missing link” Ida last week, paleontologist Christopher Beard warned about how such stunts damage scientific credibility. “The only thing we have going for us that Hollywood and politicians don’t is objectivity,” he told Science magazine.1 Can the public trust the objectivity of scientists as a class? Do they get more credibility points than other groups of professionals? Do the processes of scientific publication warrant a higher level of trust?

Many of us have grown up with an unrealistic image of science. The scientist is supposed to be the honest, objective, unbiased, sincere seeker of the truth in a white lab coat, using a scientific method (whatever that is) guaranteed to sift the kernel of empirical fact from the chaff of subjectivity. And even if he or she fails, the scientific community, with its rigorous demands for PhD certification and its peer review process, catches any mistakes before publication. Don’t be deceived. Real scientists often wear denim and are as fallible as the rest of us. The same goals of integrity should apply to any professional endeavor, whether theology, philosophy, political science, economics, art, or car repair.

Real science is often rewarded according to what works. It’s not an ultimate source of understanding. If your model or equation gets you to the moon, great. If your pill cures a disease, terrific. Repeatability adds credibility. Science is probably the best method civilization has devised for finding workable answers to physical questions. When it comes to understanding the world, or ourselves, or our past, scientists (like other humans) often draw inferences that go far beyond the evidence (e.g., attempting to describe the “evolution of altruism"). Scientists are often chained to paradigms. Peer pressure and ingrained ideologies prevent them from straying outside the paradigm, or from even asking different questions than their peers consider worthwhile. Add to that the temptations of money and prestige, and the clear liberal bias of the scientific institutions and it’s a wonder you can trust anything the scientific community says.

But even in the most optimistic view of science (and science admittedly does have many practical successes in its win column), the practice of science is dead in the water without character. Honesty, integrity, love of the truth: these are fundamental requirements for science. Do you learn those things in science class? Do you discover them with the scientific method? Do you envision them as chance inventions of imaginary ape ancestors? Obviously not. Those things must be in place before you even begin following the desire to become a scientist. Maybe you just need a commandment which says: “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” -J.S.]

1. Ann Gibbons, “Celebrity Fossil Primate: Missing Link or Weak Link?”, Science 29 May 2009: 324:5931, pp. 1124-1125, DOI: 10.1126/science.324_1124.

How Many Scientists Fabricate And Falsify Research?

ScienceDaily (May 29, 2009) — It's a long-standing and crucial question that, as yet, remains unanswered: just how common is scientific misconduct? In the online, open-access journal PLoS ONE, Daniele Fanelli of the University of Edinburgh reports the first meta-analysis of surveys questioning scientists about their misbehaviours. The results suggest that altering or making up data is more frequent than previously estimated and might be particularly high in medical research.

Recent scandals like Hwang Woo-Suk's fake stem-cell lines or Jon Sudbø's made-up cancer trials have dramatically demonstrated that fraudulent research is very easy to publish, even in the most prestigious journals. The media and many scientists tend to explain away these cases as pathological deviations of a few "bad apples." Common sense and increasing evidence, however, suggest that these could be just the tip of the iceberg, because fraud and other more subtle forms of misconduct might be relatively frequent. The actual numbers, however, are a matter of great controversy.

Estimates based on indirect data (for example, official retractions of scientific papers or random data audits) have produced largely discrepant results. Therefore, many researchers have asked scientists directly, with surveys conducted in different countries and disciplines. However, they have used different methods and asked different questions, so their results also appeared inconclusive.

To make these surveys comparable, the meta-analysis focused on behaviours that actually distort scientific knowledge (excluding data on plagiarism and other kinds of malpractice) and extracted the frequency of scientists who recalled having committed a particular behaviour at least once, or who knew a colleague who did.

On average, across the surveys, around 2% of scientists admitted they had "fabricated" (made up), "falsified" or "altered" data to "improve the outcome" at least once, and up to 34% admitted to other questionable research practices including "failing to present data that contradict one's own previous research" and "dropping observations or data points from analyses based on a gut feeling that they were inaccurate."

In surveys that asked about the behaviour of colleagues, 14% knew someone who had fabricated, falsified or altered data, and up to 72% knew someone who had committed other questionable research practices.

In both kinds of surveys, misconduct was reported most frequently by medical and pharmacological researchers. This suggests that either the latter are more open and honest in their answers, or that frauds and bias are more frequent in their fields. The latter interpretation would support growing fears that industrial sponsorship is severely distorting scientific evidence to promote commercial treatments and drugs.

As in all surveys asking sensitive questions, it is likely that some respondents did not reply honestly, especially when asked about their own behaviour. Therefore, a frequency of 2% is probably a conservative estimate, while it remains unclear how the figure of 14% should be interpreted.