Scientific misconduct

Scientific Misconduct: Fabrication,
Falsification and Sanctity of Data
By
Yamuna Chhetri
2015-1-37-0037
At
School of Health and Allied Sciences
Pokhara University, Dhungepatan, Pokhara
2019
Seminar on
Theme: Issue in public health
Under cordial guidance of
Dr. Hari Prasad Kafle
Lecturer (Public Health)
SHAS, PU

Introduction
 Scientific misconduct is the violation of the standard
codes of scholarly conduct and ethical behavior in the
publication of professional scientific research.
 Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification,
plagiarism and violation of authorship rules in
proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in
reporting research results.
-[US Department of Health and Human Services]
 This may occur every stage of the research process
(Data generation, recording, review and publication/
dissemination of scientific knowledge)
9/26/2019 Health_Seminar_Special_Topic 2

Falsification
 Falsification is the alteration of
the observed result of a scientific experiment.
 This is the practice of manipulating research materials,
equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or
results such that the research is not accurately
represented in the research record.
 Falsification is the most common form of scientific
misconduct, in a study of China 2006 40% of the
investigated misconduct cases were falsifications.
Khadem-Rezaiyan M, Dadgarmoghaddam M. Research misconduct: a report from a
developing country. Iranian journal of public health. 2017;46(10):1374.

Contd…
 Falsification involves making changes for example in
the set up or results of an experiment in a way that
cannot be scientifically justified.
 Most commonly with the intention of improving the
results or removing results that do not fit the hypothesis.

Fabrication
 Fabrication is the invention of data or information.
 Fabricating data involves creating a new record of data
or results. Most commonly fabricated documents are
informed consent forms and patient diaries.
 According to a study from 2004, fabrication is the
second most common form of scientific misconduct,
comprising 22% of the studied cases, plus 27% of the
cases, labelled fabrication.

Plagiarism
 Copying someone else’s
intellectual property (information or ideas) as own
achievement without giving the actual source.
 Plagiarism is the most frequent type of misconduct and
major breach of ethics.
 Plagiarism is qualitatively different from the other two
because it does not distort scientific knowledge,
although it has important consequences for the careers
of people involved, and for the whole scientific
enterprise.

Magnitude of problem
 Human activity is associated with misconduct, and as
scientific research is a global activity, research
misconduct is a global problem.
 prevalence and characteristics of research misconduct
have mainly been studied in highly developed countries.
 In poorly developed countries data on research
misconduct are scare.
 Studies conducted mostly in high-income countries
suggest that 2%–14% of scientists may have fabricated
or falsified data.

Contd…
 The few data available from low- and middle-income
countries suggest that research misconduct is as
common there as in high-income countries, and there
have been high profile cases of misconduct from
LMICs.
 A report from developing country Iran shows
undergraduate students had estimated 19% research
misconduct during their thesis while this was 26% in
postgraduate students.

Contd..
 A study from Nigeria shows that 68.9% of investigators
admitted to at least one of eight listed forms of scientific
misconduct.
 A study from India shows 65.1% reported the offering
of gift authorship, 56.7% had knowledge of an
individual who altered or fabricated data; and 53.5%
observed plagiarism.
Dhingra D, Mishra D. Publication misconduct among medical professionals in
India. Indian journal of medical ethics. 2014;11(2):104-7.

Contd…
Khadem-Rezaiyan M, Dadgarmoghaddam M. Research misconduct: a report
from a developing country. Iranian journal of public health.
2017;46(10):1374.

Zhang M, Grieneisen ML. The impact of misconduct on the published medical and
non-medical literature, and the news media. Scientometrics. 2013;96(2):573-87.

Contd…
 Each year the number of article retracted due to any
kind of misconduct increased nearly 2% per year from
1980-2000.
 The percentage of retracted articles involving
misconduct fluctuate from year to year.
 It has grown from 18.5–29.2 % from year 1990–1993
and 55.8–71.9 % from year 2007–2010.
Zhang M, Grieneisen ML. The impact of misconduct on the published medical and
non-medical literature, and the news media. Scientometrics. 2013;96(2):573-87.

Contd..
 Researcher age had a negative association with the
misconduct that older researchers tended to report less
misconduct.
 The journal which have more publication had higher
misconduct.
 Compared with researchers in the region of North
America, researchers in Asia tended to have higher
misconduct scores.
Maggio L, Dong T, Driessen E, Artino Jr A. Factors associated with scientific
misconduct and questionable research practices in health professions education.
Perspectives on medical education. 2019;8(2):74-82.

Contd…
 The German Rectors Conference in Germany classifies
the following five manifestations as serious crime
1. Falsifying information
2. Infraction of intellectual property
3. Calming another person as a (co-)author without their
permission
4. Destruction of research work
5. Destroying primary data.

Research misconduct does not include
 Ordinary errors
 Good faith differences in interpretations or judgments of
data
 Scholarly or political disagreements
 Good faith personal or professional opinions
 Private moral or ethical behavior or views
 Authorship controversy

Why scientific misconduct occur?
 Academic/ career pressure
 Publication pressure
 Personal desire for fame or plum positions
 Sloppy science
 Financial gain
 Inability to determine right from wrong
 Cultural differences

Consequences of scientific misconduct
1. Could mean the end to career as a researcher.
Dismissal from faculty
 Rejection of research grants
Blacklisted (e.g. reputable research organizations and universities
refuse to hire; funding sources refuse to sponsor research work,
journals refuse to consider any articles for publication.)
2. Fabricators may have previously earned academic achievement
taken away.
e.g. in 2004, Jan Hendrik Schön was stripped of his doctorate degree
by the University of Konstanz after found him fabrication related
research done during his employment there.
(http://news.sciencemag.org/education/2011/09/jan‐hendrik‐sch%C3%B6n‐
loses‐his‐ph.d.)

Overview of the Darsee Case
 John R. Darsee was a young clinical investigator in
cardiology at the Brigham and Women's Hospital (a
teaching affiliate of Harvard University)
 In May of 1981, Darsee's associates and supervisors at
Harvard caught him fabricating data.
 Other investigations led to the conclusion that Darsee
fabricated research publications beginning when he was
a biology student at Notre Dame, continuing through his
medical residency and cardiology fellowship at Emory
University, and ending at Harvard.
 More than 10 primary journal articles and more than 45
abstracts were retracted as a result of the investigations.
Culliton BJ. Coping with fraud: the Darsee Case. Science (New York, NY).
1983;220(4592):31.

Measures to maintain research ethics and avoid
scientific misconduct
Before conduction of
research
During conduction of
research
After research
 Develop clear
research plan
 Submit protocol to
ethical review
 Prepare well with
your research
community
 Agree on authorship
 Follow the approved
protocol
 Gain consent
 Involve the
community
 Protect yourself,
your team and your
participants
 Regularly check
your data
 Share your study
report
 Return ‘something’
back to the
researched
community
 Follow publication
ethics
 Use reference
management
software

Why research misconduct matters?
 Difficult to be recognized. It is like domestic violence;
we did not recognize it, yet we see a lot.
 It undermines public trust in medical research and
health professionals
 It corrupts the scientific records and leads to false
conclusion
 Most countries do not have good systems neither for
prevention nor for treatment.
Stavale R, Ferreira GI, Galvão JAM, Zicker F, Novaes MRCG, de Oliveira CM, et
al. Research misconduct in health and life sciences research: A systematic review of
retracted literature from Brazilian institutions. PloS one. 2019;14(4):e0214272.

Methods to prevent academic research misconduct
 Ensure policy during academic research not only in
paper, but to be followed
 Set standards for supervision
 Enforce expectations for process rigor
 Communicate expectations for accurate accounting of
time spent on research activities
 Evaluate the strength of your grant
 Establish an Office of Research Integrity
Coughlin SS, Barker A, Dawson A. Ethics and scientific integrity in public health,
epidemiological and clinical research. Public health reviews. 2012;34(1):5.

Bibliography
• Khadem-Rezaiyan M, Dadgarmoghaddam M. Research misconduct: a
report from a developing country. Iranian journal of public health.
2017;46(10):1374.
• Pupovac V, Prijić-Samaržija S, Petrovečki M. Research misconduct in the
Croatian scientific community: a survey assessing the forms and
characteristics of research misconduct. Science and engineering ethics.
2017;23(1):165-81.
• Fanelli D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A
systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PloS one.
2009;4(5):e5738.
• Zhang M, Grieneisen ML. The impact of misconduct on the published
medical and non-medical literature, and the news media. Scientometrics.
2013;96(2):573-87.
• Ford B. Strategies for Preventing Research Misconduct. Ankura
Collaboration drives results. 2018.

Contd…
• Dhingra D, Mishra D. Publication misconduct among medical
professionals in India. Indian journal of medical ethics. 2014;11(2):104-
7.
• Stavale R, Ferreira GI, Galvão JAM, Zicker F, Novaes MRCG, de
Oliveira CM, et al. Research misconduct in health and life sciences
research: A systematic review of retracted literature from Brazilian
institutions. PloS one. 2019;14(4):e0214272.
• (http://news.sciencemag.org/education/2011/09/jan‐hendrik‐sch%C3%B
6n‐ loses‐his‐ph.d.)
• Maggio L, Dong T, Driessen E, Artino Jr A. Factors associated with
scientific misconduct and questionable research practices in health
professions education. Perspectives on medical education. 2019;8(2):74-
82.

Scientific misconduct

Scientific misconduct

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Scientific misconduct

More from Pokhara University, Pokhara, Nepal

Recently uploaded

Scientific misconduct