Guilty Of Scientific Misconduct Research Articles

On Some Possible Ramifications of the “Microplastics in Fish” Case

Cases of research misconduct in the ecological and environmental sciences appear to be relatively rare. A controversial paper published in Science in 2016 documenting the effects of microplastics on the feeding and innate behaviours of fish larvae has recently been retracted, with the authors found guilty of scientific misconduct. In addition to the expected fallout, such as individual and institutional reputational damage from a research misconduct finding, this case has two possibly wider-ranging ramifications. Firstly, there may be a presumptive notion that a strong negative effect could be more successfully published than a neutral effect. This presumption would belie the true stringency and rigor of research adopted by workers in the field. Secondly, the case may have a negative impact on the public's perception of and trust in legitimate and good science that addresses critical environmental issues, such as anthropogenic climate change.

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.

Retractions Put Spotlight on China's Part-Time Professor System

In the latest scandal to grip Chinese academia, Zhejiang University last November fired an associate professor after finding him guilty of scientific misconduct. Since then, more allegedly plagiarized papers have come to light.

Response by Samia A. Hurst & Alex Mauron

We appreciate Ragnar Rylander's approval of our conclusions about the management of conflicts of interest. Distinctions can, and should, be made between acceptable and unacceptable conflicts of interests based on the primary interests of the partners, the types of decision that the conflict is likely to affect, and the feasibility of introducing local regulations to protect the freedom and judgement of academic researchers. Step-by-step management of conflicts of interest aims to minimize bias, and, as such, it should be an explicit part of the scientific method. However, Rylander also attempts to reopen a case that he has now lost both before the academic authorities of the University of Geneva and the Swiss legal system. In response to his letter, we can only refer the interested reader to the published record. As Rylander sued two whistleblowers for libel, the case came before the Swiss judiciary and was appealed all the way to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (Geneva, 2003). The final sentence of the Geneva Court of Justice of 15 December 2003 completely rejected the charge and confirmed that Rylander “acting in his capacity of associate professor at the University, took advantage of its influence and reputation, not hesitating to put science at the service of money and not heeding the mission entrusted to this public institution, a mission which consists in particular in disseminating a culture founded on scientific knowledge” (Geneva, 2003). Further sources of reference in examining this ‘Affaire Rylander' include the public expose by McKee of the “very complex set of financial relationships between Professor Rylander and the tobacco industry”, an industry that had “engaged in a covert, sustained campaign to undermine the integrity of science”, together with Rylander's responses (McKee, 2003, and cited references), further discussions by Diethelm et al (2005) and Rylander's exchanges with these authors (Rylander, 2005). Sources also include the report of the inquiry commission set up in the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Geneva (University of Geneva, 2004), which was summarized in the European Journal of Public Health, and concluded “that Professor Rylander was guilty of scientific misconduct in hiding the real extent of his links with the tobacco industry and in aligning his activity as a scientific investigator and expert with the strategic objectives of his industrial sponsors,” (Anon, 2006). The aftermath of the case is outlined in the Lancet (Neroth, 2004) and the lessons of the case for conflict-of-interest policies of scientific journals are drawn by the editor of the International Journal of Cancer (zur Hausen, 2006). We can only speculate as to whether the victims of the Spanish Inquisition would agree with Rylander's comparison of his predicament to theirs. As they are not in a position to challenge his rhetoric, however, this particular point is unlikely ever to be settled in the courtroom.

As Seeburg faces misconduct inquiry.

munich Germany's Max Planck Society is to investigate whether Peter Seeburg, a director at the Max Planck Institute for Medical Research in Heidelberg, is guilty of scientific misconduct.

SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT Appeals hearing probes AIDS virus case

Hearings began last week on an appeal by a former National Institutes of Health (NIH) researcher of a finding of scientific misconduct against him. This is the first public test of the Public Health Service's Office of Research Integrity's (ORI) new appeals process for scientific misconduct cases. ORI found in December that virologist Mikulas Popovic falsified data and methodology in a seminal paper on the AIDS virus. Popovic was first author of the paper, which describes isolating and growing the virus [ Science 224 ,497 (1984)]. ORI also found NIH AIDS researcher Robert C. Gallo (Popovic's former boss) guilty of scientific misconduct, and as a sanction recommended requiring both scientists' work to be closely supervised for three years (C&EN, Jan. 11, page 4). Both men claim they are innocent. Gallo's appeal is slated to be heard in a separate hearing in July. ORI's finding of scientific misconduct stems from a two-year investigation conducted by NIH. The agency's ...

NIH Clears Gallo; Patent Probes Go On

The National Institutes of Health has concluded NIH AIDS researcher Robert C. Gallo is not guilty of scientific misconduct in connection with the 1984 discovery of the AIDS virus. That conclusion, however, is under fire from critics who charge it is inconsistent with the facts uncovered by NIH's own investigation. Morever, Gallo is still under scrutiny by other federal investigators—including the staff of powerful Congressman John D. Dingell (D.-Mich.)—for possible criminal wrongdoing in connection with the patent on lucrative blood tests for the virus. At the heart of the controversy is whether Gallo's laboratory or that of French researchers at the Pasteur Institute in Paris were the first to discover the AIDS virus. In 1987, the scientists agreed to share priority and the U.S. and French governments reached a legal agreement to split the royalties from the ensuing blood test for AIDS. Gallo and his former coworker Mikulas Popovic each are entitled to ...