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.
More information: Fanelli D (2009) How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. PLoS ONE 4(5): e5738. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738, http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738
Source: Public Library of Science (news : web)
Via: http://www.physorg.com/news162795064.html