- It's a general rule that 90% of material
published in scientific research journals will turn out to be wrong. However,
90% of what goes on to appear in a textbook will be right.
-
- That's simply the way it is with science
- trial and error.
-
- But even error has limits of credibility
and concern has been mounting in the scientific community about the rising
number of incidents of fraudulent findings.
-
- On Thursday the eminent scientific journal
Nature publishes an article that looks at the different approaches countries
are taking to tackle this thorny issue.
-
- It points out that while proven examples
of scientific fraud are few and far between, a mass of undetected cases
probably make it into print every year.
-
- A survey published in American Scientist
in 1993 found between 6% and 9% of respondents were personally aware of
results that had been plagiarised or fabricated within their faculties.
In 1995, a poll of almost 300 randomly selected researchers in Norway found
22% were aware of "serious breaches of research ethical guidelines"
among colleagues.
-
- The consensus is that while most do not
intentionally set out to falsify their work, by cutting corners research
is inevitably flawed.
-
- Directly in the firing line is the biomedical
science industry where competition is intense for a breakthrough in the
lucrative drugs market and good results can do wonders for a company's
share price.
-
- Alchemy - the original fraud
-
- In fairness, science has a long history
of not exactly sticking to the point. Big question marks hang over the
work done by Ptolemy, Isaac Newton and Gregor Mendel. And as for the "science"
of alchemy ...
-
- "The scientific community should
be worried about fraud because it corrupts science and leads to public
mistrust," says the renowned physicist and former editor of Nature,
Sir John Maddox.
-
- "What tends to happen is that people
are under pressure to get clean results because of issues such as funding
and tenure."
-
- Where researchers could once rely on
secure university jobs and funding was a given, they now operate in an
increasingly competitive environment.
-
- These days contract work is the norm
and funding is tied to results. Scientists find themselves always having
to justify their jobs and that means pressure to publish findings as often
as possible.
-
- But reform on both these fronts is not
the only answer, says Sir John.
-
- Dual benefit of reform
-
- "I think in the long-run that if
pressure to publish were less strong it would also make scientists more
productive because they wouldn't be worrying about these things."
-
- Any drop-off in fabricated data would
simply be a welcome spin off, he says.
-
- "If you went back to where government
used to give universities money and just expect them to spend it wisely,
all they did was dish it out among their chums."
-
- And Sir John says that in Germany, where
academic contracts tend to be longer, there is no evidence of less fraud.
-
- One solution in Britain would be to follow
the lead set by the United States and Scandinavian counties and set up
an independent investigation agency.
-
- But these have met with only very limited
success. Cases become bogged down in legal arguments and the strike rate
is low. Of the 1,000 or so allegations of misconduct received by the US
Office of Research Integrity between 1993 and 1997, misconduct was judged
in just 76.
-
- Call for diligence
-
- Sir John says greater diligence must
be applied at an earlier stage.
-
- "It's up to the scientific societies,
such as the Biomedical Society, to police their own representatives. They
exist to improve the reputation of their particular discipline."
-
- The Medical Research Council has its
own guidelines and encourages universities, scientific societies and other
institutions to draw up similar rules for their members.
-
- But until everyone plays fair, it seems
science will be less than pure.
|
