Research or criminal conspiracy?

[Guest guest]

GMW: Researchers lured to fudge truth"GM WATCH" <infoMon, 27 Mar 2006 15:27:32 +0100GM WATCH dailyhttp://www.gmwatch.org---Accordiung to this study, nearly 1 in 6 US scientists say that in thelast 3 years they changed the design, methodology or results of a studyin response to pressure from a funding source, while more than 1 in 3admitted some form of research wrongdoing.An earlier UK study found that 1 in 3 scientists working for Governmentquangos or newly privatised laboratories said they had been asked toadjust their conclusions to suit the sponsor. (see item 2)---Pressure for success often lures researchers to fudge

truthBy Steve LevinPittsburgh Post-Gazette, , March 19, 2006http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06078/672956.stmIn November, University of Pittsburgh reproductive biologist Gerald P.Schatten found himself entangled in an investigation of scientificmisconduct along with a stem-cell research collaborator in South Korea.Renowned Korean researcher Hwang Woo-suk admitted manipulatinglaboratory samples to create fake DNA results for a paper --co-authored by Dr.Schatten -- that claimed to have succeeded in embryonic stem-cellcloning.[article continues below this box]***TABLETop 10 [mis]behaviorsPercentage of 3,247 U.S. scientists who say that they engaged in thebehavior listed between 2002 and 2005.Changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response topressure from a funding source -

15.5%Overlooking others' use of flawed data or questionable interpretationof 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'sown research - 1.7%Using anothers ideas without obtaining permission or giving due credit- 1.4%Relationships with students, research subjects or clients that may beinterpreted as questionable - 1.4%Not properly disclosing involvement in firms whose products are basedon one's own research - 0.3%Ignoring major aspects of human-subject requirements - 0.3%Falsifying or cooking research data - 0.3%***[article continues]The fraud staggered the worldwide scientific community because itoccurred in the high-profile discipline of stem-cell research andinvolvedDr.

Hwang, who carried the title of Supreme Scientist in Korea and washead of the world's leading stem cell research center.But while the breadth of that case was unusual, the occurrence ofscientific 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 bythe National Institutes of Health showed that more than one-third ofthem admitted research wrongdoings between 2002 and 2005.Only 1.5 percent of them admitted to the most serious misconduct offalsification or plagiarism.And last year, the federal Office of Research Integrity in theDepartment of Health and Human Services received about 300 allegations ofresearch misconduct last year, double the number from 2003.Cheating, of course, occurs in all fields. But scientists andresearchers?"The temptations are huge," said Paul D. Tate, senior scholar

inresidence at the Council of Graduate Schools and director of itsResponsibleConduct of Research initiative.At a research lab where no one is looking over shoulders, a scientistwho ignores anomalous results can produce career-boosting work. "At the cutting edge of science," Dr. Tate said, "the rewards are hugeand the temptation is greater."Such was the case with Dr. Hwang. As first recipient of the titleSupreme Scientist, he received $15 million from his government. Thatwas inaddition to about $27 million in international funding support hesecured in 2005. His online fan club had 15,000 members.Ethicists point to various reasons for cheating in the scientificcommunity, among them mental illness, the unfamiliarity of foreignnationalswith American research ethics, pressure to publish and the lacklusterteaching of ethics in graduate schools.Sometimes, researchers can be swept up in the

misconduct of others orsimply make missteps.Dr. Schatten's case shows that the pressure to move forward onhigh-profile projects, combined with the difficulty of keeping track ofresearch involving multiple teams in disparate locations, can make itdifficult to steer clear of ethical lapses.Dr. Schatten, who is director of the Pittsburgh Development Center andMagee-Womens Research Institute, was involved in laboratory-relatedmisconduct investigations at both his previous university jobs prior toarriving at Pitt in mid-2001.The first involved misappropriated eggs at the University ofWisconsin-Madison during 1993-94. Dr. Schatten, then a professor ofzoology,molecular biology, and obstetrics and gynecology, used eggs for researchthat later were discovered to have been obtained illegally by aUniversity of California-Irvine fertility clinic, from women withouttheirconsent.In that case, two UC-Irvine

physicians were charged by the federalgovernment with mail fraud and conspiracy to defraud patients of theirgenetic material. Both fled the United States. A third UC-Irvinephysicianwas convicted in 1998 of fraudulently billing insurance companies; hewas fined $64,000 and sentenced to three years probation.Additionally, more than 100 couples were paid nearly $20 million tosettle their cases.As far as Dr. Schatten's involvement, a University of Wisconsininvestigation determined that he "unintentionally" received themisappropriated eggs."Jerry was very thoroughly investigated," said Alta Charo, a professorof law and medical ethics at Wisconsin and a member of the universityteam 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 appropriateoversight bodies."Dr. Schatten left Wisconsin

in 1998 for the Oregon National PrimateResearch Center, where he was research director of the Center for Women'sHealth, and a professor of obstetrics and gynecology, and cell anddevelopmental biology.There, he directed the researchers who in early 2001 produced theworld's first genetically modified nonhuman primate, a transgenic monkey.Later that year, the center's Institutional Biosafety Committeeinvestigated Dr. Schatten for three "miscommunications" that included amisstatement to the committee about his research work. All threeissues wereremedied "in a relatively short period of time," a research centerspokesman said"They were fairly minor issues," said the spokesman, Jim Newman."However, if they were not addressed so quickly, they would have beenmoreserious issues."Dr. Schatten has refused public comment since it was first reported inNovember that Dr. Hwang had fabricated data on the cloning

ofpatient-specific stem cells. A Pitt inquiry last month concluded Dr.Schattendid not intentionally falsify stem-cell research information described ina paper that appeared last year in the journal Science. The article hassince been retracted.The committee did chide Dr. Schatten for his lack of judgment inallowing his listing as senior author of the discredited paper andrecommended the university "implement whatever corrective ordisciplinary actionsare commensurate with [Dr. Schatten's] research misbehavior."Such actions would be at the discretion of Arthur Levine, senior vicechancellor of health sciences, and would be kept confidential.South Korean state prosecutors plan to announce the result of theirinvestigation in Dr. Hwang's research fabrication this week.Since 1992, the federal Office of Research Integrity has averaged about11 findings of research misconduct annually. But with only 10

staffmembers to investigate allegations, the office closes only a smallfraction of cases each year.Glenn McGee, director of the Alden March Bioethics Institute at AlbanyMedical College, said a good way to reduce cheating would be to improveethics teaching."The teaching of research ethics is today where the teaching of medicalethics was in the 1950s," said Dr. McGee, co-author of an article lastmonth in Science on "Research Conduct: Lessons of the Stem CellScandal.""We are worse at training scientists in research ethics than we are atany other forms of ethics training in any other field," he said. "Ittakes more ethics screening to adopt a cat than for new scientists."At Pitt, an average of 5,000 grants are submitted each year to federalagencies, other governmental agencies and foundations. One-half tothree-quarters of all the grants are submitted to the National Institutesof Health, the federal font of

more than $200 billion in research grantseach year.The university requires all of its federally funded researchers tocomplete Web-based training in Research Practice Fundamentals.According to Jerry Rosenberg, Pitt's research integrity officer, therewere 10 cases of misconduct between 1996 and 2005. Five of the caseswere reported to the federal Office of Research Integrity, whichconfirmed findings of research misconduct.Ethicists disagree about the best way to prevent scientific cheating.Robert P. George, the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and directorof the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions atPrinceton University, believes it's a character issue."You won't prevent this kind of thing by simply making people moreknowledgeable about the rules," he said.But Dr. Tate from the Council of Graduate Schools thinks the problemcan be "attacked" by awareness and education. An

organization of morethan 450 universities' graduate programs that award 90 percent of allU.S.doctoral degrees, CGS received a $300,000 grant from the NationalScience Foundation this month to develop research ethics trainingprograms."If we're not going to change the culture of research, at least makeethical questions a lot more visible on the radar screen than they havebeen," said Dr. Tate."The goal is to keep research ethics on the agenda of graduate schoolstudents, deans and educators for a long period of time so that ethicalissues in research do become a regular part of the landscape ingraduate education."---MORE OF THE SAMEScientists regularly 'asked to fix results for backer'http://ngin.tripod.com/pblinks2.htmA report in Daily Telegraph, Monday 14 February 2000 on the impact ofsponsorship on impartiality"ONE in

three scientists working for Government quangos or newlyprivatised laboratories says he has been asked to adjust hisconclusions tosuithis sponsor."Research into the funding of 10 papers on the alleged blood clottingrisk of the third generation contraceptive pills found those funded bythepharmaceutical industry had discovered no risk, whereas those withother sources of funding claimed there was, he said.Recent American research had also discovered links between studieswhich found passive smokin was not dangerous and the tobacco industry."These competing interests are very important," said Dr Smith [editorof the British Medical Journal]. "It has quite a profound influence ontheconclusions and we deceive ourselves if we think science is whollyimpartial."---LANCET: Corrupt Science-Business interfacehttp://ngin.tripod.com/pblinks2.htmThis is about a $2 million concerted campaign to halt or undermine ascientific study on the dangers of passive smoking, targetingresearchers, themedia and government."All policymakers must be vigilant to the possibility of research databeing manipulated by corporate bodies and of scientific colleaguesbeingseduced by the material charms of industry. Trust is no defence againstan aggressively deceptive corporate sector."THE LANCET, April 2000 - commentary and Guardian article:http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/2000/000409.htmlhttp://www.newsunlimited.co.uk/smoking/Story/0,2763,156849,00.html---------------------- "Our ideal is not the spirituality that withdraws from life but the conquest of life by the power of the spirit." - Aurobindo.

Talk is cheap. Use Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.