Allegations Of Scientific Misconduct Research Articles

William Lawrence Tower's Beetles: Experimental Evolution and the Manipulation of Inheritance.

William Lawrence Tower's work on the evolution of the Colorado Potato Beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata), documenting the environmental induction of mutation and speciation, made him a leading figure in experimental genetics during the first decade of the 20th century. His research program served as a model for other experimental evolution studies seeking to demonstrate the environmental modification of inheritance. Tower enjoyed the support of influential figures in the field, despite well-known problems that plagued Tower's earlier academic career. The validity of his genetic work, and other findings reported by Tower, were later challenged. The Tower affair illustrates how questionable and possibly fraudulent scientific practices can be tolerated to explore certain experimental directions and theoretical frameworks, particularly at the frontier of expanding disciplines. When needed, those explorations can be forestalled or extinguished by exploiting conspicuous vulnerabilities of rogue practitioners. In Tower's case, both unrefuted allegations of scientific misconduct and personal problems dissolved his institutional support, leading to a swift ouster from academic science. Tower's downfall discredited soft inheritance and neo-Lamarckian conceptions in the field of experimental genetics, facilitating the discipline's embrace of a hard inheritance model that featured a hereditary material resistant to environmental modification.

Why we need academic integrity

Following allegations of scientific misconduct in high-temperature superconductivity, Caitlin Duffy says that if trust in science is to be maintained, researchers must be able to report their concerns.

Overview of Imaging Techniques in Immunohistochemistry.

Augmentation of digital images is almost always a necessity in order to obtain a reproduction that matches the appearance of the original. However, that augmentation can mislead if it is done incorrectly and not within reasonable limits. When procedures are in place for ensuring that originals are archived and image manipulation steps reported, scientists not only follow good laboratory practices but avoid ethical issues associated with post-processing and protect their labs from any future allegations of scientific misconduct. Also, when procedures are in place for the correct acquisition of images, the extent of post-processing is minimized or eliminated. These procedures include color balancing (for brightfield images), keeping tonal values within the dynamic range of the detector, frame averaging to eliminate noise (typically in fluorescence imaging), use of the highest bit depth when a choice is available, flatfield correction, and archiving of the image in a non-lossy format (not JPEG).When post-processing is necessary, the commonly used applications for correction include Photoshop and ImageJ, but a free program (GIMP) can also be used. Corrections to images include scaling the bit depth to higher and lower ranges, removing color casts from brightfield images, setting brightness and contrast, reducing color noise, reducing "grainy" noise, conversion of pure colors to grayscale, conversion of grayscale to colors typically used in fluorescence imaging, correction of uneven illumination and flatfield correction, blending color images (fluorescence), and extending the depth of focus. These corrections are explained in step-by-step procedures in the chapter that follows.

Confronting Research Misconduct in Citizen Science

So, you suspect that someone in a citizen science project committed research misconduct. What do you do now? As citizen science methods become increasingly popular, it seems inevitable that at some point, someone identifying themselves as a citizen scientist will be accused of committing research misconduct. Yet the growth of the field also takes research increasingly outside of traditional regulatory mechanisms of identifying, investigating, and delivering consequences for research misconduct. How could we prevent or handle an allegation of scientific misconduct in citizen science that falls outside of our familiar regulatory remedies? And more broadly, what does this imply for ensuring scientific integrity in citizen science? I argue that the increasing use of new research methods in citizen science poses a challenge to traditional approaches to research misconduct, and that we should consider how to confront issues of research misconduct in citizen science. I briefly describe existing approaches to research misconduct and some aspects of citizen science giving rise to the problem, then consider alternative mechanisms, ranging from tort law to professional responsibility to a proposed “research integrity insurance,” that might be deployed to address and prevent such cases.

Allegation of scientific misconduct increases Twitter attention

The web-based microblogging system Twitter is a very popular altmetrics source for measuring the broader impact of science. In this case study, we demonstrate how problematic the use of Twitter data for research evaluation can be, even though the aspiration of measurement is degraded from impact to attention measurement. We collected the Twitter data for the paper published by Yamamizu et al. (2017). An investigative committee found that the main figures in the paper are fraudulent.

Acquisition and Post-Processing of Immunohistochemical Images.

Augmentation of digital images is almost always a necessity in order to obtain a reproduction that matches the appearance of the original. However, that augmentation can mislead if it is done incorrectly and not within reasonable limits. When procedures are in place for insuring that originals are archived, and image manipulation steps reported, scientists not only follow good laboratory practices, but avoid ethical issues associated with post processing, and protect their labs from any future allegations of scientific misconduct. Also, when procedures are in place for correct acquisition of images, the extent of post processing is minimized or eliminated. These procedures include white balancing (for brightfield images), keeping tonal values within the dynamic range of the detector, frame averaging to eliminate noise (typically in fluorescence imaging), use of the highest bit depth when a choice is available, flatfield correction, and archiving of the image in a non-lossy format (not JPEG).When post-processing is necessary, the commonly used applications for correction include Photoshop, and ImageJ, but a free program (GIMP) can also be used. Corrections to images include scaling the bit depth to higher and lower ranges, removing color casts from brightfield images, setting brightness and contrast, reducing color noise, reducing "grainy" noise, conversion of pure colors to grayscale, conversion of grayscale to colors typically used in fluorescence imaging, correction of uneven illumination (flatfield correction), merging color images (fluorescence), and extending the depth of focus. These corrections are explained in step-by-step procedures in the chapter that follows.

Scientific misconduct and unethical practices in anaesthesiology: Stumbling blocks to quality research and publications

Scientific misconduct and unethical practices in anaesthesiology: Stumbling blocks to quality research and publications

Integrity in Research Publishing and Professional Accountability

Integrity in Research Publishing and Professional Accountability

Research Integrity in Greater China: Surveying Regulations, Perceptions and Knowledge of Research Integrity from a Hong Kong Perspective

In their 2010 article 'Research Integrity in China: Problems and Prospects', Zeng and Resnik challenge others to engage in empirical research on research integrity in China. Here we respond to that call in three ways: first, we provide updates to their analysis of regulations and allegations of scientific misconduct; second, we report on two surveys conducted in Hong Kong that provide empirical backing to describe ways in which problems and prospects that Zeng and Resnik identify are being explored; and third, we continue the discussion started by Zeng and Resnik, pointing to ways in which China's high-profile participation in international academic research presents concerns about research integrity. According to our research, based upon searches of both English and Chinese language literature and policies, and two surveys conducted in Hong Kong, academic faculty and research post-graduate students in Hong Kong are aware of and have a positive attitude towards responsible conduct of research. Although Hong Kong is but one small part of China, we present this research as a response to concerns Zeng and Resnik introduce and as a call for a continued conversation.

Rebuttal Letter to Avery's Scientific Misconduct

Davies rebuts Avery's allegations of scientific misconduct and offers specific scholarly research citations with the objective of furthering a rational debate about climate change.

Issues in Data Management

Data management raises a number of issues, both regulatory and non-regulatory. Researchers should understand how data are defined by their particular institutions and regulatory authorities. Data are the bases of scientific communication and provide a strong defense against allegations of scientific misconduct. Authorization is often necessary before collection of data can commence. Proper handling, retention, and storage of data, especially that involving humans, are crucial for the researcher. Data ownership by the institution leads to a responsibility by the institution to educate all its researchers in responsible data management practices.

Research misconduct: Dr Grethe Støa Birketvedt not guilty of scientific misconduct

In May 2006, you published a review ‘Research misconduct: poisoning the well’ by former editor of the British Medical Journal Richard Smith1 in which the problem of identifying scientific fraud was discussed and a general failure to develop methods for examination of possible cases was noted. He stated that, unlike many other countries, the Nordic countries had developed processes yet chose to highlight a case from Norway in which he, as editor of the BMJ, had successfully asked an author's employer to investigate. That investigation at the University of Oslo found that ‘there was not a problem with the work’. The paper by Norwegian general practitioner Dr Grethe Stoa Birketvedt was published in the BMJ2 with a ‘sceptical’ commentary from Professor John Garrow.3 The matter might have rested there had Dr Smith not added ‘I am not sure if the work was fraudulent, but I am left with severe doubts’ in his 2006 JRSM article, 13 years after the first misconduct investigation in Oslo. This damaging comment published in the JRSM and repeated in Dr Smith's book has led to professional difficulties for the investigator formerly under suspicion and ultimately led to a re-examination of the case all over again, this time by the ethical committee of the University of Tromso where she had received a PhD in 1995 [JF was the supervisor, ARL was the principal external examiner]. In August 2009, the University of Tromso announced that, following a very thorough enquiry into the issue, the Research Ethics Committee concluded that allegations of scientific misconduct were unfounded [including an identity confirmation from University Director, University of Tromso],4 yet no effort has been made to publicize this finding of ‘not guilty’. While we support every effort to identify cases of fraud and withdraw papers presenting fraudulent claims, we feel that scientific journals have an equally strong moral obligation to make a clear statement when a suspect investigator has been found not guilty.

Safeguarding good scientific practice in Europe

National governments invest in re‐search and development with the intention of creating new jobs and commodities and of stimulating economic growth. At the same time, science is becoming a truly global enterprise owing to the increased ease of international collaboration and communication between research groups and the global mobility of scientists themselves. The globalization of science and its growing economic importance underlines the need to establish and harmonize codes of good scientific practice and to regulate procedures for handling allegations of research misconduct. At the moment, however, it is the case that countries—and even different institutions in the same country—apply different standards and procedures to securing research integrity. > The globalization of science and its growing economic importance underlines the need to establish and harmonize codes of good scientific practice… This fragmented landscape of quality control is dissatisfying for all parties: the public, academic institutions and scientists themselves. In this regard, the USA has had a 20‐year head start: responding to widely publicized cases of research misconduct—namely fraud, falsification and plagiarism—US Congress created the Office of Scientific Integrity in 1989—now the Office of Research Integrity (ORI; Rockville, MD, USA)—to handle allegations of scientific misconduct in research that is funded by the Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the National Institutes of Health. The US procedures stipulate that the ORI must assess investigative reports submitted by institutions and, through an oversight role, decide whether or not misconduct has occurred (www.ori.hhs.gov). In addition, scientific fraud and falsification in publicly funded research are taken more seriously in the USA; they are considered as misappropriation of federal funds, with fitting legal sanctions. Indeed, several US scientists who committed fraud and falsification were eventually sentenced to stiff fines and even jail terms (www.ori.hhs.gov/misconduct/cases). There is, of course, also a long history of allegations …

Perspective: Innocence and Due Diligence: Managing Unfounded Allegations of Scientific Misconduct

While the incidence of fraud in science is well documented, issues related to the establishment of innocence in cases of fallacious allegations remain unaddressed. In this article, the author uses his own experience to examine issues that arise when investigators are falsely accused of scientific fraud. Investigators must understand the processes in place to protect themselves against false accusations. The present system takes a position of guilty until proven innocent, a concept that is antithetical to American principles of jurisprudence. Yet this stance is acceptable as a requirement for membership in the scientific community, more reflective of the rules within a guild organization. The necessity for proof of innocence by members of the scientific community carries obligations that transcend normal legal assumptions. Scientists must safeguard their reputations by organizing and maintaining all original image files and data relevant to publications and grant proposals. Investigators must be able to provide clear documentation rapidly whenever concerns are raised during the review process. Moreover, peer-reviewed journals must be diligent not only in the identification of fraud but also in providing rapid due process for adjudication of allegations. The success of the scientific guild rules of conduct lies in the practice of due diligence by both scientists and journal editors in questions of scientific misconduct.

The Korean press and Hwang’s fraud

This case study explores why South Korean journalists overlooked allegations of scientific misconduct against South Korean scientist Dr. Woo Suk Hwang and even indirectly defended him in 2005—6. Nineteen journalists, who covered Hwang’s story for five of South Korea’s leading daily newspapers, were interviewed. The interviewees added insights about the news coverage of the Hwang scandal not identified in previous literature, such as the difficulties among journalists to suspend their personal disbelief about the criticisms and evidence against Hwang. The findings suggest the news judgments that occurred in Korean newsrooms during the Hwang scandal reflected a socially constructed process of negotiation among news media professionals and between journalists and scientists. The findings also suggest it may be best to consider journalistic mores within a multidimensional framework that includes journalistic perceptions of socio-cultural norms, internal newsroom standards for evidence, newsroom competence and training, normative journalism ethics, news gathering techniques, perceived dissonance and professed risk avoidance.

Challenges in Science and Academic-Industry Interactions

Challenges in Science and Academic-Industry Interactions

Croatia founded a national body for ethics in science

The Committee for Ethics in Science and Higher Education (CESHE) was created in Croatia as a national body appointed by the Parliament. Thus Croatia became one of a handful of countries with national means of responding to allegations of scientific misconduct. The Committee's duties, with the help of the Ethics Code, include promotion of ethical norms and values in science and higher education. The CESHE will work on cases of possible research misconduct and alleged disregard for the ethical norms associated with research.

Letter to the Editor

Two manuscripts that were submitted to, reviewed, and published in the Journal of Animal Science as a result of work by the National Pork Producers Council Terminal Line and Maternal Sow Line Genetic Evaluation Programs were questioned concerning the validity of the information and issues of ethical misconduct by the authors. The perceived lack of a response by the Journal and the officers of the American Society of Animal Science has also been questioned. Both the Journal leadership and ASAS officers took the questions raised very seriously, and in this letter, we will explain the procedures that were used to evaluate this complaint. The proper mechanism for the review of scientific misconduct is through an investigative body of the lead author's institution (employer). The Journal review process, on the other hand, is designed to evaluate scientific merit, experimental design, interpretation of data, and conclusions reached from the results. For these 2 manuscripts, 2 institutions were involved. Both universities used their standard internal mechanisms to investigate the allegations of scientific misconduct. The primary questions raised about these 2 papers related to whether the genetic populations and sampling procedures had been adequately described. Questions about statistical methodology and interpretation of the data also were raised, but these questions seemed to be issues of interpretation and differences in judgment that were not related to scientific misconduct. Thorough, independent investigations were conducted by the 2 institutions.

Government Crackdown, Please

Concerned about the chaotic way scientific misconduct allegations in China are being publicized, Chinese scientists are asking the government to step in. More than 120 Chinese researchers, most U.S.-based, have signed a letter calling on research agencies to create an official process for addressing

Scientific misconduct and findings against graduate and medical students.

Allegations of scientific misconduct against graduate students appear to have unique attributes in the detection, investigation, processes used and sanctions imposed vis-à-vis other populations against which misconduct is alleged and found. An examination of the cases closed by the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Research Integrity and the National Science Foundation reveals that most of the allegations made against graduate and medical students are for falsification and fabrication. Further, additional processes are used in these cases, e.g., student judicial processes, more students are "set up" and more students admit misconduct. Finally, the sanctions imposed when a finding is made typically involve separation from the institution and the federal sanction ranges from none to debarment. Drawing upon the teachings and circumstances of cases involving graduate student peers is a good vehicle for illustrating the concepts and perils of misconduct to graduate students.