Abstract
A recent National Academy report on research integrity noted that policies are not evidence-based, with no formal entity responsible to attend to this deficit. Here we describe four areas of research misconduct (RM) regulations governing Public Health Service funded research that are empirically and/or ethically questionable. Policies for human subject protection, RM and conflict of interest are not harmonized, making it extremely difficult to deal with complex cases which often contain allegations in all of these areas. Second, detection of RM has depended entirely on whistleblowers in spite of evidence of significant under-reporting. Third, the scientific record is far from cleansed of the effects of falsified/fabricated work through current mechanisms of retraction. Finally, lack of fairness in the regulations may reflect lack of a Belmont Report-like document to guide ethics of RM policy. These issues are likely common in other countries. RM regulations should be harmonized with related regulations and their effectiveness tracked, open access to data for independent replication and improved statistical tests are an essential supplement to whistleblowers, correction of the scientific record will require a major effort, and further ethical analysis and guidance are as important as is empirical study for the improvement of RM regulations. Further consideration should be given to assigning current regulations for human subjects protection, RM and conflict of interest to a single authority and to the further development of a Belmont-like report of essential principles, for RM.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Belmont Report, Federal Register 1979 April 18; 44(76), 23192–23197.
Bierer, B., Mark, B., & on behalf of the IRB/RIO/IO Working Group. (2014). Research misconduct involving noncompliance in human subjects research supported by the Public Health Service: Reconciling separate regulatory systems. The Hastings Center Report, 44(4 Special Number), S2–S26.
Bosch, X. (2010). Safeguarding good scientific practice in Europe. EMBO Reports, 11(4), 252–257.
Carlisle, J. B., & Loadsman, J. A. (2017). Evidence for non-random sampling in randomized controlled trials by Yuhji Saitoh. Anaesthesia, 72, 17–27.
Casadevall, A., Steen, R. G., & Fang, F. (2014). Sources of error in the retracted literature. FASEB Journal, 28(4), 3847–3855.
Cyranoski, D. (2017). China cracks down on fake data in drug trials. Nature, 545, 275.
De Mets, D. L., Fleming, T. R., Geller, G., & Ransohoff, D. F. (2017). Institutional responsibility and the flawed genomic biomarkers at Duke University: A missed opportunity for transparency and accountability. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23, 1199–1205.
Douglas, H. (2014). The moral terrain of science. Erkenn, 79, 961–979.
Elia, N., et al. (2016). How do authors of systematic reviews deal with research malpractice and misconduct in original studies? A cross-sectional analysis of systematic reviews and survey of their authors. British Medical Journal Open, 6, e010442.
Ellemers, N. (2017). Morality and the regulation of social behaviors; groups as moral anchors. London: Routledge.
Fuster, G., & Gutwirth, S. (2016). Promoting integrity as an integral dimension of excellence in research. D II.4 Legal analysis, 7/6/2016. http://www.hioaresponsibleinnovation.wordpress.com/projects/printeger. Funded from European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme.
Geyer, C. L., & Williamson, P. P. (2004). Detecting fraud in data sets using Benford’s Law. Communications in Statistics, 33(1), 229–246.
Hangel, N., & Schickore, J. (2017). Scientists’ conceptions of good research practice. Perspectives on Science, 25(6), 766–791.
Herson, J. (2016). Strategies for dealing with fraud in clinical trials. International Journal of Clinical Oncology, 21, 22–27.
Houdek, P. (2017). Professional identity and dishonest behavior. Society, 54, 253–260.
Ioannidis, J. P. A., Stuart, M. E., Brownlee, S. S., & Sherri, A. (2017). How to survive the medical information mess. European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 47, 795–802.
Jacob, M. (2016). On the scope and typology of research misconduct: The gaze of the General Medical Council, 1990–2015. Medical Law Review, 24(4), 497–517.
Korpela, K. M. (2010). How long does it take for the scientific literature to purge itself of fraudulent material: The Breuning case revisited. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 26(4), 843–847.
National Academy of Science, Engineering and Medicine. (2017). Optimizing the nation’s investment in academic research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Redman, B., & Caplan, A. (2017). Improving research misconduct policies. EMBO Reports, 18(4), 511–514.
Resnik, D. B., & Dinse, G. E. (2013). Scientific retractions and corrections related to misconduct findings. Journal of Medical Ethics, 39(1), 46–50.
Simonsohn, U. (2013). Just post it: The lesson from two cases of fabricated data detected by statistics alone. Psychological Science, 24(10), 1875–1888.
Stroebe, W., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2012). Scientific misconduct and the myth of self-correction in science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 670–688.
Titus, S. L., Wells, J. A., & Rhoades, L. J. (2008). Repairing research integrity. Nature, 453, 980–982.
Watts, G. (2017). Herbert Leroy Needleman, obituary, Lancet 930.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Redman, B.K. Correctable Myths About Research Misconduct in the Biomedical Sciences. Sci Eng Ethics 25, 621–629 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0027-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0027-3