More than mentoring: the importance of group culture for scientific integrity

Abstract

And so we reach the end of another year with its fair share of scientific plagiarism, faked credentials, falsified results and other types of scientific misconduct. Though these are overwhelmingly the exception, rather than the rule, they do not seem to be decreasing in frequency either. It is not easy to create and institute standards; I certainly do not claim otherwise. Certain things are so difficult to formulate in a broadly implementable way that they have lingered in the air as ‘concepts’, e.g. the Hippocratic Oath for scientists. The Bologna Process comes from a different angle in standardizing academic qualifications across countries. But for promoting integrity, far more productive than vows of behaviour and standards of qualification would be a standard cultural ‘upbringing’ for young scientists. It is, as David Callahan notes in his book ‘The Cheating Culture: Why More Americans Are Doing Wrong to Get Ahead’1 cultural factors and social conditioning that breed cheating in the first place – cheating that persists in the face of espoused personal standards, passing of legislation or punishment. The closest that many scientists come to thinking about laboratory culture is the LB flasks swirling in the 37°C incubator. But joking aside, the lab environment is where good practice in research starts: this is where trust between young researchers is cultured. Oh that there were a readily mixed medium for the growth of that quality. Clearly, leadership and mentoring by the laboratory head sow the seeds of such culture, but it has to be practised in the sense of an ‘esprit de corps’. As Callahan notes, codes of honour are common devices for instilling integrity in young people in general (starting at school). This really means belonging to a group that demonstrates upstanding behaviour and morals. The ‘group’ culture is essential, otherwise the principle reduces itself to a ‘signature on paper’ or lip service to an abstract principle. It has to be lived every day, in the laboratory, between members of a research group. If the results of a survey I conducted whilst at EMBO are anything to go by, a majority of senior life scientists rate research ethics as the most important area of knowledge and skills for PhD students2*. That is telling of a problem that PIs recognise, and good mentoring at PhD is certainly part of the solution (Indeed, because cheating starts so early in life, research ethics should arguably form part of every undergraduate science course). However, mentoring is just the beginning. The social management of a laboratory should be the aim. Another important aspect of this is the reassurance of PhD students by their supervisors that their career is not over if the PhD does not result in a paper in Nature, Cell or similar. Pressure and fear of failure have the rest of the scientific career to develop, so supervisors need to be very sensitive to the line dividing supportive motivation from pressured competition. Most students who have come as far as a PhD can be assumed to have some degree of competition in their bones, but collaboration and openness cannot be taken for granted at this stage.