Perspective
- 1 July 2012
- journal article
- editorial
- Published by Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) in Academic Medicine
- Vol. 87 (7), 877-882
- https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0b013e318257ee6a
Abstract
Research misconduct—fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism—is an insidious problem in the scientific community today with the capacity to harm science, scientists, and the public. Federal agencies require that research trainees complete a course designed to deter such behavior, but the author could find no evidence to suggest that this effort has been effective. In fact, research shows that most cases of misconduct continue to go unreported. The author conducted a detailed examination of 146 individual Office of Research Integrity reports from 1992 to 2003 and determined that these acts of misconduct were the results of individual psychological traits and the circumstances in which the researchers found themselves. Therefore, a course in research misconduct, such as is now federally mandated, should not be expected to have a significant effect. However, a course developed specifically for support staff, who currently do not receive such training, might prove effective. Improving the quality of mentoring is essential to meaningfully deal with this issue. Therefore, the quality of mentorship should be a factor in the evaluation of training grants for funding. In addition, mentors should share responsibility for their trainees’ published work. The whistleblower can also play a significant role in this effort. However, the potential whistleblower is deterred by a realistic fear of retaliation. Therefore, institutions must establish policies that acknowledge the whistleblower’s contribution to the integrity of science and provide truly effective protection from retaliation. An increase in whistleblowing activity would provide greater, earlier exposure of misconduct and serve as a deterrent.Keywords
This publication has 26 references indexed in Scilit:
- Repairing research integrityNature, 2008
- The Perverse Effects of Competition on Scientists’ Work and RelationshipsScience and Engineering Ethics, 2007
- Research Misconduct, Retraction, and Cleansing the Medical Literature: Lessons from the Poehlman CaseAnnals of Internal Medicine, 2006
- Scientists behaving badlyNature, 2005
- A survey of newly appointed consultants' attitudes towards researchJournal of Medical Ethics, 2001
- Fraud in Medical Research: An International Survey of BiostatisticiansControlled Clinical Trials, 2000
- Phenomena of RetractionJAMA, 1998
- Ethical issues in biomedical research: Perceptions and practices of postdoctoral research fellows responding to a surveyScience and Engineering Ethics, 1996
- A pilot study of biomedical traineesʼ perceptions concerning research ethicsAcademic Medicine, 1992
- Correcting the Literature Following Fraudulent PublicationPublished by American Medical Association (AMA) ,1990