Males Are Overrepresented among Life Science Researchers Committing Scientific Misconduct

ABSTRACT A review of the United States Office of Research Integrity annual reports identified 228 individuals who have committed misconduct, of which 94% involved fraud. Analysis of the data by career stage and gender revealed that misconduct occurred across the entire career spectrum from trainee to senior scientist and that two-thirds of the individuals found to have committed misconduct were male. This exceeds the overall proportion of males among life science trainees and faculty. These observations underscore the need for additional efforts to understand scientific misconduct and to ensure the responsible conduct of research. IMPORTANCE As many of humanity’s greatest problems require scientific solutions, it is critical for the scientific enterprise to function optimally. Misconduct threatens the scientific enterprise by undermining trust in the validity of scientific findings. We have examined specific demographic characteristics of individuals found to have committed research misconduct in the life sciences. Our finding that misconduct occurs across all stages of career development suggests that attention to ethical aspects of the conduct of science should not be limited to those in training. The observation that males are overrepresented among those who commit misconduct implies a gender difference that needs to be better understood in any effort to promote research integrity.

Download Full-text

Research misconduct complaints and institutional logics: The case of Hans Eysenck and the British Psychological Society

Journal of Health Psychology ◽

10.1177/1359105320963542 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 135910532096354

Author(s):

Russell Craig ◽

Anthony Pelosi ◽

Dennis Tourish

Keyword(s):

Heart Disease ◽

Personality Traits ◽

Scientific Misconduct ◽

Research Misconduct ◽

Research Integrity ◽

Institutional Logics ◽

British Psychological Society ◽

Prevention And Treatment ◽

Formal Complaint

A formal complaint was lodged with the British Psychological Society in 1995 that alleged serious scientific misconduct by Hans J Eysenck. The complaint referred to research into the links between personality traits and the causes, prevention and treatment of cancer and heart disease. Using a framework of institutional logics, we criticise the Society’s decision not to hear this complaint at a full disciplinary hearing. We urge the BPS to investigate this complaint afresh. We also support calls for the establishment of an independent National Research Integrity Ombudsperson to deal more effectively with allegations of research misconduct.

Download Full-text

Dissecting the Financial Relationship between Industry and Academic Neurosurgery

Neurosurgery ◽

10.1093/neuros/nyaa257 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Mustafa Motiwala ◽

Michael J Herr ◽

Sripraharsha S Jampana Raju ◽

Jock Lillard ◽

Sonia Ajmera ◽

...

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

New England ◽

Geographic Location ◽

Bimodal Distribution ◽

The United States ◽

Median Number ◽

Career Stage ◽

Entire Cohort ◽

South Central ◽

And Gender

Abstract BACKGROUND Established by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the Open Payments Database (OPD) has reported industry payments to physicians since August 2013. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the frequency, type, and value of payments received by academic neurosurgeons in the United States over a 5-yr period (2014-2018). METHODS The OPD was queried for attending neurosurgeons from all neurosurgical training programs in the United States (n = 116). Information from the OPD was analyzed for the entire cohort as well as for comparative subgroup analyses, such as career stage, subspecialty, and geographic location. RESULTS Of all identified neurosurgeons, 1509 (95.0%) received some payment from industry between 2014 and 2018 for a total of 106 171 payments totaling $266 407 458.33. A bimodal distribution was observed for payment number and total value: 0 to 9 (n = 438) vs > 50 (n = 563) and 0-$1000 (n = 418) vs >$10 000 (n = 653), respectively. Royalty/License was the most common type of payment overall (59.6%; $158 723 550.57). The median number (40) and value ($8958.95) of payments were highest for mid-career surgeons. The South-Central region received the most money ($117 970 036.39) while New England received the greatest number of payments (29 423). Spine surgeons had the greatest median number (60) and dollar value ($20 551.27) of payments, while pediatric neurosurgeons received the least (8; $1108.29). Male neurosurgeons received a greater number (31) and value ($6395.80) of payments than their female counterparts (11, $1643.72). CONCLUSION From 2014 to 2018, payments to academic neurosurgeons have increased in number and value. Dollars received were dependent on geography, career stage, subspecialty and gender.

Download Full-text

How do researchers acquire and develop notions of research integrity? A qualitative study among biomedical researchers in Switzerland

BMC Medical Ethics ◽

10.1186/s12910-019-0410-x ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 20 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Priya Satalkar ◽

David Shaw

Keyword(s):

Scientific Evidence ◽

Research Misconduct ◽

Team Sports ◽

Research Integrity ◽

Responsible Conduct Of Research ◽

Structured Interviews ◽

Age Appropriate ◽

Conducting Research ◽

Study Participants ◽

Training Opportunities

Abstract Background Structured training in research integrity, research ethics and responsible conduct of research is one strategy to reduce research misconduct and strengthen reliability of and trust in scientific evidence. However, how researchers develop their sense of integrity is not fully understood. We examined the factors and circumstances that shape researchers’ understanding of research integrity. Methods This study draws insights from in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 33 researchers in the life sciences and medicine, representing three seniority levels across five research universities in Switzerland. Results The results of this study indicate that early education, moral values inculcated by the family and participation in team sports were the earliest influences on notions of honesty, integrity and fairness among researchers. Researchers’ personality traits, including degree of ambition and internal moral compass, were perceived as critical in determining the importance they attributed to conducting research with high ethical standards. Positive and negative experiences in early research life also had a significant impact on their views regarding research integrity. Two thirds of the study participants had not received any formal training in research integrity. Their awareness of training opportunities at their institutions was also limited. Conclusion Age-appropriate development of honesty and integrity starts as early as primary education. Research integrity training should be offered from the bachelors level and continue throughout the entire professional life of researchers. Although these courses may not imbue researchers with integrity itself, they are essential to improving the research culture, reinforcing integrity norms, and discouraging researchers who lack personal integrity from engaging in research misconduct.

Download Full-text

SYSTEMATIZATION OF RESEARCH INTEGRITY BY REGULATORY BODIES AND UNIVERSITIES IN AFRICA: RESEARCH AND PUBLICATION ETHICS

Journal of Education and Practice ◽

10.47941/jep.386 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 4 (1) ◽

pp. 41

Author(s):

Lillian Omutoko

Keyword(s):

Scientific Misconduct ◽

Research Misconduct ◽

Research Integrity ◽

Ethics Committees ◽

Publication Ethics ◽

Policy And Practice ◽

Holistic Model ◽

Multiple Submission ◽

Existing Structures ◽

Institutional Model

Purpose: Research misconduct is a global ethical concern that imparts negatively on scientific processes and expectations. Other related ethical concerns are academic fraud among researchers in academic institutions. These activities are against the norms of research and academic practice. Some common occurrences in institutions are multiple submission of papers for publication, use of unauthorized assistance or various forms of dishonesty that occur in relation to any academic exercise. Research integrity is a complex multifaceted task that touches on different phases of research. Institutions in Africa barely have policies and structures to uphold research integrity and where they exist, the enforcement mechanisms are not synchronized. Prevention of research misconduct and enforcement of research integrity policies cannot be the responsibility of any single person or institution, it can only be successful if it is a concerted effort. Universities, national bodies and research ethics committees have a major role to play in maintaining research integrity. The purpose of this paper is to explore and develop a systematic approach to enhance research integrity. The paper examines common research integrity issues and proposes pragmatic approaches for preventing research misconduct. Methodology: The methodology employed was desktop document analysis of related journal articles, guidelines and institutional websites. Case studies of misconduct were reviewed to make sense of types of scientific misconduct that have been recorded in Africa. Results: Institutions can customize the institutional model according to identified needs and existing structures. The proposed framework would be successful if the efforts are implemented within a multi-thronged approach that includes mentorship and capacity building at all levels for creation of an ethical research culture that enhances credibility of research and builds public trust. Contributions to theory, policy and practice: It is envisaged that the proposed model will improve enforcement of related policies and promote research integrity. A holistic model to streamline prevention of misconduct and nurture a culture of ethical conduct in research is also recommended.

Download Full-text

The essential need for research misconduct allegation audits

10.7287/peerj.preprints.1577v1 ◽

2015 ◽

Author(s):

Lisa Loikith ◽

Robert P Bauchwitz

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Biomedical Research ◽

Research Misconduct ◽

Research Integrity ◽

The United States ◽

Federal Agencies ◽

Physical Sciences ◽

Department Of Health ◽

Office Of Research Integrity ◽

Audit Standards

The percentage of allegations of biomedical research misconduct in the United States that are dismissed by responsible institutions without any faculty assessment or auditable record is near 90%. Recently, members of the U.S. Congress have complained that the penalties for those against whom findings of research misconduct are made are too light and that too few grant funds associated with research misconduct have been recovered for use by other researchers and taxpayers. Here we describe the laws that empower federal agencies which can oversee investigations of biomedical research misconduct: the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and Office of the Inspector General (OIG), both located within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Research misconduct pertaining to U.S. physical sciences funded through the National Science Foundation (NSF) is overseen by the NSF's OIG. While OIGs may provide some improvement over ORI in the handling of research misconduct, we have found that a much more serious flaw exists which undermines an ability to conduct performance audits as to the effectiveness by which allegations of research misconduct are handled in the United States. Federal audit standards (GAGAS/Yellow Book), if applied to the handling of research misconduct, would allow a determination as to whether the handling of allegations of biomedical research misconduct actually functions adequately, and if not, how it might be improved. Specifically, we propose that independent, external peer review under GAGAS audit standards should be instituted without delay in assessing the performance of ORI, or any other similarly tasked federal agency, in handling allegations of research misconduct.

Download Full-text

Open science and codes of conduct on research integrity

Informaatiotutkimus ◽

10.23978/inf.77414 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 37 (4) ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Heidi Laine

Keyword(s):

Research Misconduct ◽

Codes Of Conduct ◽

Research Integrity ◽

Science Research ◽

Open Science ◽

Ethical Principles ◽

Responsible Conduct Of Research ◽

Open Collaboration ◽

Responsible Conduct ◽

Definition Of

The purpose of this article is to examine the conceptual alignment between the ethical principles of research integrity and open science. Research integrity is represented in this study by four general codes of conduct on responsible conduct of research (RCR), three of them international in scope, and one national. A representative list of ethical principles associated with open science is compiled in order to create categories for assessing the content of the codes. According to the analysis, the current understanding of RCR is too focused on traditional publications and the so called FFP definition of research misconduct to fully support open science. The main gaps include recognising citizen science and societal outreach and supporting open collaboration both among the research community and beyond its traditional borders. Updates for both the content of CoCs as well as the processes of creating such guidelines are suggested.

Download Full-text

Equity for women and underrepresented minorities in STEM: Graduate experiences and career plans in chemistry

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ◽

10.1073/pnas.2020508118 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 118 (4) ◽

pp. e2020508118

Author(s):

Jean Stockard ◽

Celeste M. Rohlfing ◽

Geraldine L. Richmond

Keyword(s):

Graduate School ◽

Mixed Model ◽

The United States ◽

Underrepresented Minorities ◽

Scientific Enterprise ◽

School Students ◽

Supportive Relationships ◽

Career Plans ◽

And Gender ◽

Ethnicity And Gender

Recent events prompted scientists in the United States and throughout the world to consider how systematic racism affects the scientific enterprise. This paper provides evidence of inequities related to race–ethnicity and gender in graduate school experiences and career plans of PhD students in the top 100 ranked departments in one science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) discipline, chemistry. Mixed-model regression analyses were used to examine factors that might moderate these differences. The results show that graduate students who identified as a member of a racial/ethnic group traditionally underrepresented in chemistry (underrepresented minorities, URM) were significantly less likely than other students to report that their financial support was sufficient to meet their needs. They were also less likely to report having supportive relationships with peers and postdocs. Women, and especially URM women, were significantly less likely to report supportive relationships with advisors. Despite their more negative experiences in graduate school, students who identified as URM expressed greater commitment to finishing their degree and staying in the field. When there was at least one faculty member within their departments who also identified as URM they were also more likely than other students to aspire to a university professorship with an emphasis on research. Men were significantly more likely than women to express strong commitment to finishing the PhD and remaining in chemistry, but this difference was stronger in top-ranked departments. Men were also more likely than women to aspire to a professorship with an emphasis on research, and this difference remained when individual and departmental-level variables were controlled.

Download Full-text

Reasons for and time to retraction of genetics articles published between 1970 and 2018

Journal of Medical Genetics ◽

10.1136/jmedgenet-2019-106137 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 56 (11) ◽

pp. 734-740 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Rafael Dal-Ré ◽

Carmen Ayuso

Keyword(s):

Scientific Misconduct ◽

Research Misconduct ◽

Research Integrity ◽

Medical Genetics ◽

Third Party ◽

The Usa ◽

Retraction Notice ◽

Reduced Time

IntroductionBetween 0.02% and 0.04% of articles are retracted. We aim to: (a) describe the reasons for retraction of genetics articles and the time elapsed between the publication of an article and that of the retraction notice because of research misconduct (ie, fabrication, falsification, plagiarism); and (b) compare all these variables between retracted medical genetics (MG) and non-medical genetics (NMG) articles.MethodsAll retracted genetics articles published between 1970 and 2018 were retrieved from the Retraction Watch database. The reasons for retraction were fabrication/falsification, plagiarism, duplication, unreliability, and authorship issues. Articles subject to investigation by company/institution, journal, US Office for Research Integrity or third party were also retrieved.Results1582 retracted genetics articles (MG, n=690; NMG, n=892) were identified . Research misconduct and duplication were involved in 33% and 24% of retracted papers, respectively; 37% were subject to investigation. Only 0.8% of articles involved both fabrication/falsification and plagiarism. In this century the incidence of both plagiarism and duplication increased statistically significantly in genetics retracted articles; conversely, fabrication/falsification was significantly reduced. Time to retraction due to scientific misconduct was statistically significantly shorter in the period 2006–2018 compared with 1970–2000. Fabrication/falsification was statistically significantly more common in NMG (28%) than in MG (19%) articles. MG articles were significantly more frequently investigated (45%) than NMG articles (31%). Time to retraction of articles due to fabrication/falsification was significantly shorter for MG (mean 4.7 years) than for NMG (mean 6.4 years) articles; no differences for plagiarism (mean 2.3 years) were found. The USA (mainly NMG articles) and China (mainly MG articles) accounted for the largest number of retracted articles.ConclusionGenetics is a discipline with a high article retraction rate (estimated retraction rate 0.15%). Fabrication/falsification and plagiarism were almost mutually exclusive reasons for article retraction. Retracted MG articles were more frequently subject to investigation than NMG articles. Retracted articles due to fabrication/falsification required 2.0–2.8 times longer to retract than when plagiarism was involved.

Download Full-text

Are Men More Likely than Women To Commit Scientific Misconduct? Maybe, Maybe Not

mBio ◽

10.1128/mbio.00156-13 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 4 (2) ◽

Cited By ~ 9

Author(s):

Anna Kaatz ◽

Paul N. Vogelman ◽

Molly Carnes

Keyword(s):

Gender Stereotypes ◽

Scientific Misconduct ◽

Local Level ◽

Research Integrity ◽

Female Gender ◽

Scientific Enterprise ◽

Female Behavior ◽

Men And Women ◽

Gender Schemas ◽

Scientific Fraud

ABSTRACT In their study published in January 2013 in mBio, Fang et al. reviewed records from the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and found more cases of scientific misconduct committed by men than women, particularly by faculty (F. C. Fang, J. W. Bennett, and A. Casadevall, mBio 4:1–3, 2013). Powerful social norms shape the way men and women behave, and implicit gender schemas can lead to different evaluation standards for men and women for tasks stereotypically linked to one gender. It is possible that norms for acceptable male and female behavior could lead to a lower threshold for men than women to engage in the risky behavior of scientific misconduct. It is also possible that women and men commit scientific fraud at the same rate but that, because crime is a male-gendered domain, evaluators require more proof of the criminal “competence” of women for an investigation to rise to the level of an ORI case or that female gender norms for likeability and a lower apology threshold more often prevent escalation of women’s fraud beyond a local level. Male scientists also have more opportunity to commit fraud than female scientists because they receive more NIH research funding—a finding that may also be influenced by gender schemas. We cannot conclude from the ORI data that men are more likely than women to risk the consequences of committing scientific misconduct simply because risk taking aligns with male gender stereotypes. Neither can we conclude that because men are more likely than women to commit fraud in other contexts, men are also more likely than women to commit scientific fraud. We can conclude, however, that scientific misconduct, regardless of who commits it, diminishes all who contribute to the scientific enterprise.

Download Full-text

The essential need for research misconduct allegation audits

10.7287/peerj.preprints.1577 ◽

2016 ◽

Author(s):

Lisa Loikith ◽

Robert P Bauchwitz

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Biomedical Research ◽

Research Misconduct ◽

Research Integrity ◽

The United States ◽

Federal Agencies ◽

Physical Sciences ◽

Department Of Health ◽

Office Of Research Integrity ◽

Audit Standards

Nearly ninety percent of allegations of biomedical research misconduct in the United States are dismissed by responsible institutions without any faculty assessment or auditable record. Recently, members of the U.S. Congress have complained that the penalties for those against whom findings of research misconduct are made are too light and that too few grant funds associated with research misconduct have been recovered for use by other researchers and taxpayers. Here we describe the laws that empower federal agencies which can oversee investigations of biomedical research misconduct: the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and Office of the Inspector General (OIG), both located within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Research misconduct pertaining to U.S. physical sciences funded through the National Science Foundation (NSF) is overseen by the NSF's OIG. While OIGs may provide some improvement over ORI in the handling of research misconduct, we have found that a much more serious flaw exists which undermines an ability to conduct performance audits as to the effectiveness by which allegations of research misconduct are handled in the United States. Federal audit standards (GAGAS/Yellow Book), if applied to the handling of research misconduct, would allow a determination as to whether the handling of allegations of biomedical research misconduct actually functions adequately, and if not, how it might be improved. Specifically, we propose that independent, external peer review under GAGAS audit standards should be instituted without delay in assessing the performance of ORI, or any other similarly tasked federal agency, in handling allegations of research misconduct.

Download Full-text