Scientists admit faking results for backers

[Guest guest]

GMW: Scientists admit faking results for backers

" GM WATCH " <info

Fri, 10 Jun 2005 10:29:03 +0100

 

 

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

------

" 15.5% said they had changed the design, methodology or results of a

study in response to pressure from a funding source; 12.5% admitted

overlooking others' use of flawed data... " (item 1)

 

" These competing interests are very important, " said Dr Smith. " It has

quite a profound influence on the conclusions and we deceive ourselves

if we

think science is wholly impartial. " (item 2)

------

One in three scientists confesses to having sinned

Meredith Wadman

 

Abstract

 

Misconduct ranges from faking results outright to dropping suspect data

points.

 

Nature 435, 718-719 (9 June 2005) | doi: 10.1038/435718b

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7043/full/435718b.html

 

More than a third of US scientists, in a survey of thousands, have

admitted to misbehaving in the past three years. The social scientists

who

carried

out the study of research misconduct warn that because attention is

focused on high-profile, serious cases, a broader threat from more minor

deeds is being missed.

 

Their conclusions may hit a nerve, particularly among scientific

societies in the United States. Throughout the 1990s, these groups

fought to

limit

their government's definition of misconduct and the types of behaviour

it is responsible for policing.

 

Brian Martinson of the HealthPartners Research Foundation in

Minneapolis, Minnesota, and his colleagues mailed an anonymous survey to

thousands of scientists funded by the National Institutes of Health.

They asked

the scientists whether they were guilty of misbehaviours ranging from

falsifying data to inadequate record keeping.

 

Of 3,247 early- and mid-career researchers who responded, less than

1.5% admitted to falsification or plagiarism, the most serious types of

misconduct listed. But 15.5% said they had changed the design,

methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from a

funding source;

12.5% admitted overlooking others' use of flawed data; and 7.6% said

they had circumvented minor aspects of requirements regarding the use of

human subjects (see page 737).

 

Overall, about a third admitted to at least one of the ten most serious

offences on the list — a range of misbehaviours described by the

authors as " striking in its breadth and prevalence " .

 

But Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the

University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, cautions against concluding

that the

structure of science is corroded. He points out that dropping an

outlying data point is not the same as plagiarizing a paper.

 

" I don't mean to say that the problems identified don't merit

deliberation and a response, " he says. " But there may be a tendency if

you just

read the

headlines to say, 'Oh my goodness, the ethical house of science is

collapsing around us'. "

 

Martinson counters that, although individual cases may not be as

serious as fraud, the survey reveals a threat to the integrity of science

that is not

captured by narrow definitions of misconduct. " The majority of

misbehaviours reported to us are more corrosive than explosive, " he

says. " That

makes them no less damaging. "

 

He thinks the main cause of all the questionable behaviour is the

increasing pressure that scientists are under as they compete to publish

papers and win grants. " We need to think about the working conditions in

science that can be addressed, " he says, suggesting better salaries and

employment conditions for young scientists, and a more transparent

peer-review process.

 

He is at pains to stress that he does not think governments should

expand regulation of scientific behaviour. And when it was shown

Martinson's study, the Federation of American Societies for

Experimental Biology,

based in Bethesda, Maryland, was quick to reiterate its support for the

narrow

definition of misconduct that was officially agreed in 2000.

 

" The US government adopted 'fabrication, falsification and plagiarism'

as the defining criteria, a policy with which we concur, " says Paul

Kincade, the federation's president. That means the government cannot

investigate or punish any behaviours outside that definition.

 

In 2002, scientific societies led by the federation and the

Washington-based Association of American Medical Colleges fought a

government

office's plan to collect data on such behaviours (see Nature 420,

739?740;

2002). The societies argued such monitoring should be the

responsibility of scientists themselves.

 

Martinson and his colleagues say their study is the first attempt to

quantify such activities. They hope their results will persuade

scientists to stop

ignoring the wider range of misbehaviour.

------

Scientists 'asked to fix results for backer'

Liz Lightfoot / London Telegraph 14feb00

 

ONE in three scientists working for Government quangos or newly

privatised laboratories says he has been asked to adjust his

conclusions to

suit his sponsor.

 

Contracting out and the commercialisation of scientific research are

threatening standards of impartiality, scientists claim. The survey was

conducted by the union representing research scientists, which is

campaigning against further privatisation of public laboratories.

 

The Institute of Professionals, Managers and Specialists says that

public safety could be harmed by the Government's plans to bring private

funding

into the National Air Traffic Services and the Defence Evaluation and

Research Agency. Privatisations over the last few years have included

the Radio Chemical Centre, now Nycomed Amersham Laboratories, and the

Atomic Energy Authority, which trades as AEA Technology.

 

Charles Harvey, the institute's spokesman, said an increasing number of

scientists had privately raised concerns with the union so it had

decided to

include a question about the influence of sponsors in a survey about

pay and conditions. Thirty per cent of the 500 respondents said they had

been

asked to tailor their research conclusions or resulting advice.

 

The figure included 17 per cent who had been asked to change their

conclusions to suit the customer's preferred outcome, 10 per cent who

said

they

had been asked to do so to obtain further contracts and three per cent

who claimed they had been asked to make changes to discourage

publication.

 

" Some were working for quangos and some for fully privatised

laboratories, " said Mr Harvey. " The piper is calling the tune and it

raises

worrying

issues. We have seen the BSE crisis, food scares and the the GMO

debacle and the public is losing confidence in Government as an

independent,

fair-minded arbiter. "

 

Scientists should be given the right to publish their research instead

of having to get permission from the sponsors, he said. Concern over

pressure

brought to bear on medical researchers has prompted the British Medical

Journal to insist that authors declare their source of funding and

whether they have any " competing interests " .

 

They must fill in a form declaring, for example, whether they have been

paid to lecture or attend symposiums by companies connected with their

work,

or hold shares in them. Richard Smith, editor of the journal, said the

policy had been formally introduced because of evidence that the

authors of

reviews of research evidence were influenced by those who commissioned

them to do the work.

 

Research into the funding of 10 papers on the alleged blood clotting

risk of the third generation contraceptive pills found those funded by

the pharmaceutical industry had discovered no risk, whereas those with

other sources of funding claimed there was, he said.

 

Recent American research had also discovered links between studies

which found passive smoking was not dangerous and the tobacco industry.

 

" These competing interests are very important, " said Dr Smith. " It has

quite a profound influence on the conclusions and we deceive ourselves

if we

think science is wholly impartial. "

 

 

 

 

-------------