Scientific Confessions

An article published in Nature describes a study finding that one in three scientists admit to having 'misbehaved' scientifically, some by ignoring 'bad' data to outright falsifying data.

Brian Martinson of the HealthPartners Research Foundation in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and his colleagues mailed an anonymous survey to thousands of scientists funded by the National Institutes of Health. They asked the scientists whether they were guilty of misbehaviours ranging from falsifying data to inadequate record keeping.

Of 3,247 early- and mid-career researchers who responded, less than 1.5% admitted to falsification or plagiarism, the most serious types of misconduct listed. But 15.5% said they had changed the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from a funding source; 12.5% admitted overlooking others' use of flawed data; and 7.6% said they had circumvented minor aspects of requirements regarding the use of human subjects.

I've witnessed some of these transgressions, and I will admit to fantasizing about doing something similar just so I can get out of this hellhole known as graduate school. (But I didn't - is thinking of sinning the same as the sin itself?) I wonder if this is a byproduct of the nature of the system - researchers are judged by the amount of money they can bring in, which could be thought of as an indirect measure of the quality of their research, the number of publications, etc. The stakes are high, especially because tenured faculty positions have largely gone the way of the dinosaur.

From their paper the authors posit some of the reasons why scientists resort to such behavior:

In our view, certain features of the research working environment may have unexpected and potentially detrimental effects on the ethical dimensions of scientists' work. In particular, we are concerned about scientists' perceptions of the functioning of resource distribution processes. These processes are embodied in professional societies, through peer-review systems and other features of the funding and publishing environment, and through markets for research positions, graduate students, journal pages and grants. In ongoing analyses, not yet published, we find significant associations between scientific misbehaviour and perceptions of inequities in the resource distribution processes in science. We believe that acknowledging the existence of such perceptions and recognizing that they may negatively affect scientists' behaviours will help in the search for new ways to promote integrity in science.

Little attention has so far been paid to the role of the broader research environment in compromising scientific integrity. It is now time for the scientific community to consider what aspects of this environment are most salient to research integrity, which aspects are most amenable to change, and what changes are likely to be the most fruitful in ensuring integrity in science.

Hence the dilemma - healthy competition (in this case, for research funds, prestige, climbing the career ladder) can result in scientific advances, benefiting society. However, with so many scientific mouths to feed, the competition becomes a frenzy and responsible scientific conduct sometimes falls by the wayside. Scientific advancement becomes merely a bonus, as long as the researcher survives to work another day. That's the mentality of my last several advisors - they see themselves as fundraisers so they can ensure the existence of the laboratory.

Where is the happy medium in all of this? Go ahead. Discuss. I have to finish writing this Discussion section of my thesis.

*******

Right now I'm listening to: Stop Making Sense, Talking Heads