Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Dealing with scientific misconduct
- Xavier Bosch (14 September 2007)
-
Dealing with commercial pressure: good habits starts early.
- Woody Caan (17 September 2007)
-
Scientific misconduct: a problem without solution
- Alejandro A. Bevaqua (19 September 2007)
-
Scientific misconduct occurs at all levels
- Xavier Bosch (21 September 2007)
-
Changes should be evidence driven
- Ike Anya (21 September 2007)
-
Re: Scientific misconduct occurs at all levels
- Alejandro A. Bevaqua (1 October 2007)
|
|
|||
|
Xavier Bosch, Consultant Internist, Associate Professor of Medicine Hospital Clinic, 08036-Barcelona
Send response to journal:
|
I am indebted to Pere Puigdoménech, PhD, member of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (http://ec.europa.eu/european_group_ethics/index_en.htm) for his review of the manuscript and advice. I am also thankful to Octavi Quintana-Trias, MD, Health Directorate, Directorate General of Research, European Commission, for providing useful information about European legislation. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Woody Caan, Professor of public health Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge CB1 1PT.
Send response to journal:
|
Bosch [1] gives an excellent overview of institutional developments to reduce misconduct during health research. Recent personal experience examining a PhD thesis has given me valuable insight into career and ethical issues for 'research nurses' early in their scientific development. The introduction of new technologies into clinical settings frequently depends on such postgraduate nurses, working under medical supervision over a long period during their professional development. Key institutions for UK health research ('UKCRC', 'NIHR') increasingly promote private sector partnership (usually leadership) in NHS-based research, with the blessing of the Treasury. The thesis I vivaed began with the express aim of demonstrating the superiority in practice of a specific 'High Tech' piece of equipment over simpler, routine methods of patient measurement. Long before the commercial technology was fully evaluated, it has since been marketed in many related products (some of which are directly marketed to patients). At first reading of the thesis, a lengthy discussion of ethical research practice stood out, as did an explicit shift in the stated aims of the study. For patient after patient the nurse observed more reliable, acceptable and interpretable measures with the simple, low tech devices than the advanced technology which had eminent and powerful advocates. She freely recognised that she had been mistaken for the first couple of years, and only with painstaking analysis of data became convinced that future measurement should take a quite different direction to all the initial expectations. The research was then completed unfunded, purely with her own (modest) resources and the continuing goodwill of patients who had previously come to trust and respect her. Credit should also go to the Consultant Physician in a teaching hospital, who continued to supervise her PhD. I doubt if that new post-doc will be offered a job now with any multi -national corporation or the increasing number of company 'units' in Britain's university hospital trusts. In future scientific careers, we all need to consider factors that promote good, honest, scientific conduct. [1] Bosch X. Dealing with scientific misconduct. BMJ 2007;335:524- 525. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Alejandro A. Bevaqua, Medicine Doctor Servicio Penitenciario Bonaerense. La Falda 2300, (8000) Bahía Blanca, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Send response to journal:
|
I don´t agree with the author -Dr. Xavier Bosch- that "international awareness of scientific misconduct is low." Awareness of scientific fraud is really high and, the worst thing, tolerated. But, in addition, I think it´s necessary to ask: Why is that? And, if that is the case, if really "international awareness of scientific misconduct is low" is it possible to do something? Professionals are living in a world where it seems to be absolutely necessary to "publish or perish". If we don´t publish, we are accademically dead. And this is not only a matter of quality but of quantity. In addition, professionals are members of institutions and so, these ones only reflect the sum of individual consciences -as pointed out by Durkheim- which are not actually too hard. If one of us -individually- takes notice of a scientific fraud and reports it, the accuser will have to hold up the situation on his shoulders (see Chalmers, Iain. Role of systematic reviews in detecting plagiarism: case of Asim Kurjak. BMJ 2006; 333: 594-96) with little if any institutional support, at least in my country. So, what can we do? Can we really do something? First, scientific misconduct -plagiarism for example- needs a clear definition (see Pawitan, Jeanne. The term plagiarism should get a clear definition. Rapid Responses to: Chalmers, Iain. Role of... BMJ.com 26 Sep 2006). Second: clearly identified, the "professional" who has commited fraud - which is a crime- must be punished hard. As punishment has to be determined or appointed by institutions we are in a vicious circle. Yours sincerely,
Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Xavier Bosch, Consultant Internist Hospital Clinic, 08036-Barcelona
Send response to journal:
|
Regardless of the degree of international awareness of scientific misconduct suggested by Alejandro Bevaqua, some readers may find it shocking to learn that several renowned European scientists have long been suspected of misconduct, demonstrating that fraud may occur at even the highest levels. Thus, research on the laboratory notebooks of Louis Pasteur, who at one time held one-tenth of all French government grants, revealed notable discrepancies with his publications (and public claims) on the anthrax and rabies vaccines (Altman LK. The doctor’s world; revisionist history sees Pasteur as liar who stole rival’s ideas. The New York Times May 16, 1995. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=990CE5DD173DF935A25756C0A963958260. Anderson C. Pasteur notebooks reveal deception. Science 1993;259:1117). Similarly, two years after Gregor Mendel’s 1866 landmark paper on plant hybridization was ‘rediscovered’, it was suggested that the reported ratios of the Austrian founder of genetics were too good to be true (Montgomerie B, Birkhead T. A beginner’s guide to scientific misconduct. ISBE Newsletter 2005;17:16-24. http://biology.queensu.ca/~montgome/pdfs/MontBirkhead05ISBE.pdf). Even Isaac Newton reportedly used what a biographer called a ‘fudge factor’: apparently, Newton organized his equations to ensure the required results (Kreutzberg GW. The rules of good science. Preventing scientific misconduct is the responsibility of all scientists. EMBO Reports 2004;5: 330-332. http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v5/n4/pdf/7400136.pdf). Lastly, Sigmund Freud was so confident of his first theories that he publicly boasted of therapeutic successes that did not materialize, forcing him to revise his theories while failing to admit that he had faked case histories [Han Israëls. Der Fall Freud. Die Geburt der Psychoanalyse aus der Lüge. Europäische Verlagsanstalt, 1993 (Hamburg)]. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Ike Anya, Specialist Registrar in Public Health Medicine Dept of Epidemiology and Public Health University College London WC1E 6BT
Send response to journal:
|
Bosch's editorial highlights an important issue- the absence of formal systems to investigate allegations of scientific misconduct in many European countries. In remediation, he suggests that countries without formal systems should learn from those that do. There is however an important issue that appears to have been overlooked- the question of effectiveness. How effective are the systems that are already in place? Is there evidence that they work? Are some models more effective than others? In promoting the development of more robust systems for tackling scientific misconduct in Europe, finding answers to these questions will ensure that new systems benefit from the strengths as well as learn from the weaknesses of existing models. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Alejandro A. Bevaqua, Medicine Doctor Servicio Penitenciario Bonaerense
Send response to journal:
|
It is really shocking and, of course, absolutely disagreeable to take notice that scientific misconduct -fraud- is in the highest levels of scientific structure. I really didn´t know that the problem affected the names of Mendel and Pasteur; something i´ve heard about Freud and Newton. Anyway, the words of Dr. Xavier Bosch just confirm my own ones: the problem of scientific misconduct known although perhaps not in such a level. We always have a tendency to believe certain persons are not really humans and so, they don´t transgress rules. But they are persons, and they have our same necessities. Now, we have another problem: if this cases of fraud commited by renowned scientists are really true, I haven´t voices against these people. Of course, it is true that we can´t change the past; and those already gone persons can´t argue in their defense. So let them to rest in peace. History is just that. But we don´t have to forget; we can´t forget and we can´t be ignorant of the problem. It exists and, fortunately, we are talking and writing about it. That´s a good beginning. I really think -I always insist ad nauseam- it is necessary to to teach young people the philosophical basis of right science but, beside this, we have to pursue and punish -as hard as possible- those who commit fraud. Anyhow, i really don´t expect too much good results. I can just invite our colleagues -at least those who spend time in reading this lines, those who really believe we have a problem with scientific misconduct- to do our best to detect, pursue and punish the bad scientists who base their work in fraud and nothing but fraud. I don´t know how to do this, but I certainly know that we have to do something. Academic Professors are, undoubtely, the first step in detecting fraud. I think they have great responsability and they can really help in this way. Dr. Alejandro A. Bevaqua Competing interests: None declared |
|||