Fraud in Science: How Much, How Serious?

Abstract

In the spring and summer of 1980 four significant instances of malpractice in scientific research came to light. Even now, more than a year later, details about fabrication of research data, alteration of patient records, and plagiarism of other scientists' work continue to emerge in the public press and in scientific journals. Although there have been instances of deceit in science in the past, this constellation of events has caused significantly more concern and consternation than ever before. What were these events, and why has their impact been so profound? * In a case of old-fashioned plagiarism, a series of papers on cancer immunology, which was published by Elias K. Alsabti, a Jordanian, was shown to be substantially identical to journal articles or grant requests written by other scientists.1 * After a co-worker detected suspicious discrepancies in laboratory notebooks, John Long, a cancer researcher at the Massachusetts General Hospital, admitted that he had fabricated data on the size of Hodgkin's immune complexes. A good deal of his previously published research was later found to be invalid because of contamination of the cell lines he had used; unfortunately these cell cultures had already been shared with a number of other scientists.2 * In June and July 1980 the Boston Globe focused a five-part Spotlight report on data-faking. In addition to the previous incident, the series reported the abrupt resignation of oncologist Marc Straus from the Boston University School of Medicine because of his alleged role in falsifying the records of patients to make them eligible for research projects conducted at University Hospital.3 * The sweltering heat of August in New York was matched by disputatious exchanges between officials of Yale and