"This Is How It's Always Been Done": The Treatment of Academic Misconduct in Canada

Abstract

Several new books and reports on the subject of misconduct, including (Arthurs, Blais, and Thompson, 1994; Lafollette, 1992, etc.), as well as the appearance of a special issue of the Journal of Higher Education in May 1994 devoted to this topic, have signalled growing interest by the educated public, and especially by academics. A discussion group Scifraud on the Internet has recently formed with the purpose of discussing the nature and definition of as well as the institutional context in which it occurs. This Note on Society reflects on the contexts of scientific and fraud, focusing specifically on and falsification of data. It discusses policies on in the United States and describes current approaches to dealing with in Canada. Some suggestions are offered for making this process more open and effective. Definitions What is meant by academic misconduct? Definitions sometimes encompass relatively minor forms of scientific misdemeanor, e.g., failure to keep adequate and careful records, sloppy research methods, refusal to disclose or share data, piecemeal publication (which can on occasion be justified), or gift authorship. But and together with plagiarism, form the trinity (FFP) that is at the core of serious scientific misconduct (cf. Hackett, 1994). Whether it is better to use the broader or the narrower definition of has been the subject of debate. The National Science Foundation (NSF) in the United States prefers the broader view, while the National Academy of Science (NAS) discounts the minor forms that (they argue) do not directly affect integrity and puts FFP at the heart of any discussion of misconduct. Other behavior deviating from established and accepted research practices may have to be dealt with by universities or funding agencies in some way, but it should not distract us from the consideration of serious misconduct, namely and plagiarism, to which I will confine my comments in this Note (cf. Hackett, 1994). (2) We must recognize that fabrication and falsification, when alleged or proved, generally imply intent to deceive (cf. Lafollette, 1992). When a false impression is created by a careless, but honest, error the terms fabrication, falsification, or fraud are inappropriate. Although these distinctions are clear enough in principle, in practice they may not be so easy to apply. Plagiarism, the third component of FFP, is an attempt to publish as one's own work produced by another. This violates intellectual property rights of individuals, but since the work or the idea itself may be quite sound, plagiarism does not destroy the foundations of empirical science, and therefore is, in my opinion, a less serious threat than the other two components. Fabrication or falsification of data undermines the foundations of trust in scientific work and devalues the currency of empirical investigations, making research questionable and ultimately pointless. Fabrication and falsification of data are in fact in the criminal sense, and as such are as destructive of the system of science as in banking is destructive of the financial system. Ben-Yehuda (1985) notes: Government corruption breeds contempt for the law, cynicism, and disrespect for the social order. Likewise, deviance in science can lead to distrust of science and shatter its legitimacy (p. 202). Academic Misconduct in Canada To the best of my knowledge, only four officially substantiated cases of serious (i.e., FFP or misuse of research funds) have come into the public domain in Canada, all of them very recently. Briefly, they are the following -- in all cases the institutions are named, but not the individuals, as their names are not to the point here: Concordia University (Kaihla, 1992) Universite de Montreal and St. …