BIO403_Lecture1_sensitization_shf_2025.pdf

# Introduction to scientific conduct and misconduct This section introduces the fundamental principles of scientific conduct and the reasons behind scientific misconduct, emphasizing the importance of trust in science and the motivations driving fraudulent practices. ### 1.1 The nature of trust in science Trust is a cornerstone of the scientific enterprise. It underpins the reliability and acceptance of scientific findings, both within the scientific community and among the public. The integrity of scientific research is directly linked to the level of trust it can garner [3](#page=3). ### 1.2 Scientific misconduct Scientific misconduct refers to the fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. Understanding why misconduct occurs involves examining the psychological factors that can lead individuals to engage in fraudulent practices [4](#page=4) [5](#page=5). #### 1.2.1 Motivations for scientific fraud The motivations behind scientific fraud are complex and can be attributed to various pressures and psychological states. These include intense personal or professional needs, such as the pressure to "publish or perish," which drives a relentless demand for research output. Other motivations stem from a rationalization of the misconduct, where individuals may justify their actions by downplaying their severity or believing they can conceal them. The perceived value of a hypothesis, even if the supporting data is imperfect, can also contribute to this rationalization [4](#page=4) [7](#page=7). #### 1.2.2 The fraud triangle The "Fraud Triangle" is a model used to explain the common factors present when fraud occurs. It comprises three elements [6](#page=6) [7](#page=7): * **Motive / Pressure:** This refers to the underlying reasons or pressures that drive an individual to commit fraud. In an academic context, this often relates to the "publish or perish" culture, where career advancement is heavily tied to publication output [7](#page=7). * **Opportunity:** This element describes the perceived chance to commit fraud and go undetected. In scientific research, data can be controlled and manipulated by the scientist, presenting an opportunity for falsification or fabrication. The ability to conceal such actions is also a key aspect of opportunity [7](#page=7). * **Rationalization:** This is the psychological justification or excuse that an individual uses to rationalize their fraudulent behavior. Common rationalizations include believing the data is "a bit off, but the hypothesis is great" or that "I only cheated a little bit". The belief that "as always in life," these actions are somehow permissible or can be overlooked also falls under this category [7](#page=7). > **Tip:** Understanding the fraud triangle is crucial for identifying potential risks of misconduct and for implementing preventative measures within research environments. #### 1.2.3 Perceptions of cheating Surveys and observations of the scientific community suggest that a certain percentage of scientists may engage in cheating. Perceptions of incentives, research misconduct, and scientific integrity vary among researchers, highlighting the importance of ongoing discussions and education on these topics [4](#page=4). > **Example:** A study by Roy & Edwards explored NSF Fellows' perceptions regarding incentives for research, the prevalence of misconduct, and the state of scientific integrity in STEM academia [4](#page=4). --- # Classic and neo-classic examples of scientific misconduct This section explores historical and contemporary cases of scientific misconduct, illustrating various fraudulent practices and their significant repercussions across different scientific disciplines [33](#page=33) [8](#page=8) [9](#page=9). ### 2.1 Classic examples of scientific misconduct #### 2.1.1 Gregor Mendel (1822 – 1884) The accusation against Gregor Mendel, a pioneer in genetics, centers on the statistical analysis of his experiments. While Mendel is credited with fundamental insights into inheritance, some critics suggest his reported results might have been too perfectly aligned with his theoretical expectations, potentially indicating insufficient or incorrect statistical application. However, other interpretations suggest that these discrepancies could be due to honest mistakes or biases rather than deliberate fraud [10](#page=10) [11](#page=11) [12](#page=12) [13](#page=13). #### 2.1.2 Piltdown man . The Piltdown man fossil discovery in 1912 was a significant paleontological finding intended to be the "missing link" between humans and apes. However, the fossils were later revealed to be a sophisticated hoax. The jawbone belonged to an orangutan, the teeth were filed down, the bones were artificially colored, and radiocarbon dating of the skull bone indicated an age far younger than claimed. The accompanying club found at the site also showed evidence of being shaped by a steel knife. This case is a clear example of outright fraud involving forged data, results, and findings. Key figures involved in this forgery include Robert Kenwood, Charles Dawson, and Arthur Smith Woodward [14](#page=14) [15](#page=15) [16](#page=16). #### 2.1.3 Robert A. Milikan (1868 – 1953) Robert A. Milikan, a Nobel Prize winner in Physics for his work on the charge of the electron and the photoelectric effect, faced accusations of misconduct related to his oil drop experiment. A paper published in 1913 reported an error of only 0.2%, significantly lower than previous calculations of 3%. Milikan claimed that his results represented all drops experimented upon during 60 consecutive days, without selection. However, a review of his notebooks revealed that he used only 58 out of 75-100 trial results, suggesting a biased representation of his data. His private notes indicated that he discarded results that deviated significantly from his expected values [17](#page=17) [18](#page=18) [19](#page=19). > **Tip:** Biased selection of data, even if not outright fabrication, can lead to misleading scientific conclusions and is considered a form of misconduct. #### 2.1.4 Tuskegee Syphilis Study (1932 – 1972) The Tuskegee Syphilis Study was a 40-year longitudinal medical study conducted by the U.S. Department of Health on the long-term effects of untreated syphilis in African American men in Alabama. Over 400 men and their families were involved in this study. The study is a stark example of severe human ethics violations because participants were denied appropriate medical treatment for 25 years, even after penicillin became available in 1947 [20](#page=20) [21](#page=21). > **Example:** This case highlights that scientific misconduct is not limited to data manipulation but also encompasses egregious breaches of ethical treatment of human subjects. #### 2.1.5 William Summerlin (1938 – recent) William Summerlin's work at Memorial Sloan Kettering in 1974 involved experiments on tissue rejection using transplantation of human corneas into rabbits and skin transplants. The misconduct associated with his research was fabrication [22](#page=22) [24](#page=24). #### 2.1.6 Philip Felig / Vijay Soman and Helena Rodbard (Breach of peer-review) This case illustrates a breach of the peer-review process. Helena Rodbard submitted a manuscript to the New England Journal of Medicine, which was subsequently rejected. Felig and Soman, after their own manuscript was rejected, then submitted their work, which was also rejected after being sent out for review. The implication is that they may have stolen or misused review information or engaged in other unethical practices related to the review process [25](#page=25) [26](#page=26) [27](#page=27). #### 2.1.7 Andrew Wakefield (1957 - recent) Andrew Wakefield's 1998 study published in The Lancet falsely linked the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine to autism and bowel disease. The study's findings, which associated behavioral symptoms with vaccinations, were heavily flawed. Key issues included [28](#page=28) [29](#page=29) [32](#page=32): * Wakefield was paid by anti-vaccine activists to conduct the study [32](#page=32). * He performed medical examinations without proper qualifications or ethical approval, including colonoscopies, biopsies, and lumbar punctures [32](#page=32). * He purchased blood samples from children at his son's birthday party for a nominal fee [32](#page=32). * Data was falsified and twisted: * Three of nine children reported with regressive autism were not diagnosed with autism [32](#page=32). * Five of the 12 children reported as "normal" had documented pre-existing developmental concerns [32](#page=32). * Children whose behavioral symptoms were reported to appear days after MMR vaccination actually showed signs months later [32](#page=32). * Normal colonic histopathology results were altered to "non-specific colitis" after a "research review" in nine cases [32](#page=32). This misconduct created a dangerous misconception in society, leading to decreased vaccination rates and increased outbreaks of preventable diseases [31](#page=31). ### 2.2 Neo-classic examples of scientific misconduct #### 2.2.1 Diederick Stapel (1966 – recent) Diederick Stapel's misconduct involved fabricating and adapting research data across numerous studies in social psychology, leading to the retraction of 58 articles. His research topics included potentially sensational or "sexy" science, such as the link between meat-eating and selfishness, and the effect of power on infidelity. Stapel admitted to fabricating data "several times, not for a short period, but over a longer period of time," driven by the pressure to "score" and publish. He expressed shame and regret for his actions and the negative impact on his field [33](#page=33) [34](#page=34). > **Tip:** The pressure to publish and achieve results can be a significant factor contributing to scientific misconduct. #### 2.2.2 Woo Suk Hwang (1953 - recent) Woo Suk Hwang's work in stem cell research was marred by significant misconduct and ethical violations. He claimed to have cloned human embryonic stem cells with high success rates, but the actual efficiencies were much lower. Further allegations included [35](#page=35) [36](#page=36): * Obtaining egg donations from graduate students and lab technicians [35](#page=35) [36](#page=36). * Forging data [35](#page=35) [36](#page=36). * Manipulating photographs [35](#page=35) [36](#page=36). * Paying lab members and coworkers to remain silent about his fraudulent activities [35](#page=35) [36](#page=36). #### 2.2.3 Joachim Boldt (1954 – recent) Joachim Boldt is described as a "record breaker" in scientific misconduct, with 194 research papers retracted. He was a German anesthesiologist whose misconduct primarily involved the failure to obtain ethical approval for human studies and the fabrication of data [48](#page=48). ### 2.3 Other malpractices and consequences #### 2.3.1 Peer-review mafia and fictitious reviewers A significant issue in scientific publishing involves "peer-review mafia" and the use of fictitious reviewers. This practice involves authors creating fake peer reviews to get their papers accepted. In one extreme case, Springer retracted 107 papers from the journal *Tumor Biology* due to discovered fake peer reviews, where either fake experts were invented or real researchers' emails were spoofed to provide glowing reviews. Some authors may have used third-party editing services that supplied these fraudulent reviews [41](#page=41) [43](#page=43). #### 2.3.2 Merck and Elsevier's fake journals Merck allegedly paid Elsevier, a prominent publisher, to create fake scientific journals to promote Merck's drugs. This issue surfaced in 2009 during a civil lawsuit involving a heart attack patient who had taken Merck's drug Vioxx. The articles published in these fabricated journals, such as *Bone & Joint Medicine*, supported Merck's products [44](#page=44). #### 2.3.3 Plagiarism in academic theses A report by the Education Policy Research and Application Center (BEPAM) of Istanbul’s Boğaziçi University indicated that a substantial portion of academic theses in Turkey exhibit high plagiarism rates. Examining 600 theses (470 master's, 130 doctoral) written between 2007 and 2016, the study found that 34 percent had high plagiarism rates. Plagiarism was more prevalent in private universities (46%) compared to public universities (31%). Institutions with English-language programs, such as Boğaziçi University, ODTÜ, and Bilkent University, appeared to have better plagiarism records [58](#page=58). #### 2.3.4 Paper retractions on the rise The number of scientific paper retractions is increasing. Data indicates a rise in retractions per year and the time taken for retractions to occur. Retractions are also broken down by country, impact factor, and journal, highlighting global trends and specific publication venues where retractions are more common. The primary reasons for retractions include misconduct such as data fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and authorship issues [51](#page=51) [52](#page=52) [53](#page=53) [55](#page=55) [56](#page=56) [57](#page=57). > **Example:** The journal *Acta Crystallogr E* is cited as having a significant number of retractions [54](#page=54). #### 2.3.5 Exposure and consequences Scientific misconduct can lead to significant exposure and severe consequences for individuals involved. Cases like Dr. Karl-Theodor Maria Nikolaus Johann Jacob Philipp Franz Joseph Sylvester Buhl - Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg and Anette Schavan illustrate prominent figures facing repercussions for academic dishonesty. These consequences can range from public scrutiny to the revocation of academic degrees and damage to careers. Resources like Retraction Watch track and report on these issues, bringing transparency to retractions and misconduct [45](#page=45) [46](#page=46) [47](#page=47) [49](#page=49) [50](#page=50). --- # Definitions and types of scientific misconduct This section formally defines research misconduct and elaborates on its primary forms: fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. ### 3.1 Defining research misconduct Research misconduct is formally defined as the fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism of research results during the stages of proposing, performing, or reviewing research [59](#page=59). ### 3.2 Types of scientific misconduct The definition of research misconduct encompasses three core activities: #### 3.2.1 Fabrication Fabrication involves the act of making up data or results and then recording or reporting them as if they were genuine [59](#page=59). > **Tip:** Fabrication represents the creation of entirely false research findings, which are then presented as authentic. #### 3.2.2 Falsification Falsification is defined as the manipulation of research materials, equipment, or processes. It also includes altering or omitting data and results in a way that causes the research record to be an inaccurate representation of the actual work [59](#page=59). > **Example:** A researcher might falsify results by selectively removing data points that do not support their hypothesis, or by altering experimental parameters to achieve a desired outcome. #### 3.2.3 Plagiarism Plagiarism is the appropriation of another individual's ideas, processes, results, or words without providing proper attribution or credit to the original source [59](#page=59). > **Tip:** Always ensure that any borrowed ideas, data, or text are properly cited to avoid plagiarism. This includes both direct quotes and paraphrased information. --- ## Common mistakes to avoid - Review all topics thoroughly before exams - Pay attention to formulas and key definitions - Practice with examples provided in each section - Don't memorize without understanding the underlying concepts

| Term | Definition | |------|------------| | Scientific Conduct | Refers to the principles, practices, and ethical standards that guide the honest and responsible conduct of scientific research. It encompasses integrity, objectivity, and transparency in all research activities. | | Scientific Misconduct | Involves the fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research results, or in reporting research. It is a serious violation of ethical principles in science. | | Fraud Triangle | A conceptual model that explains why individuals commit fraud, comprising three elements: motive or pressure, opportunity, and rationalization. These factors collectively contribute to an environment where fraudulent behavior can occur. | | Motive / Pressure | One of the components of the fraud triangle, representing the perceived intense needs or drives that push an individual towards committing fraud, such as the pressure to publish or achieve specific career goals. | | Opportunity | The second component of the fraud triangle, referring to the circumstances or conditions that allow an individual to commit fraud, such as the ease with which data can be manipulated or concealed due to lax oversight. | | Rationalization | The third component of the fraud triangle, where an individual justifies their fraudulent behavior to themselves, often by minimizing its severity or believing it is acceptable under certain circumstances. | | Fabrication | The act of making up results and then recording or reporting them as if they were obtained through legitimate research methods. This directly misrepresents the findings of a study. | | Falsification | The manipulation of research materials, equipment, or processes, or the changing or omitting of results. This is done in a way that causes the research to be inaccurately represented in the scientific record. | | Plagiarism | The appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving them proper credit. This is a form of intellectual theft and a violation of academic integrity. | | Peer Review | The evaluation of scientific work by other experts in the same field. It is a critical process for ensuring the quality, validity, and significance of research before it is published. | | Retraction | The formal withdrawal of a published scientific paper or article. Retractions are typically issued when significant flaws, errors, or misconduct are discovered in the published work. | | Tuskegee Syphilis Study | A notorious historical study conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service where the effects of untreated syphilis were observed in African American men without providing adequate medical treatment, even after penicillin became available. | | Piltdown Man | A famous archaeological hoax involving the discovery of supposed early human fossils in England. The fossils were later proven to be a fraudulent combination of human skull fragments and an orangutan jawbone. | | Oil Drop Experiment | A landmark experiment conducted by Robert Millikan to measure the elementary charge of the electron. This experiment has been subject to scrutiny regarding potential data manipulation. | | Peer-review mafia | A colloquial term referring to a group or network of individuals who manipulate the peer-review process to their advantage, often by submitting fake reviews or colluding to promote or reject specific papers. | | Fake peer reviews | Reviews submitted for scientific manuscripts that are not conducted by genuine, qualified experts. This can involve creating fictitious reviewers or impersonating real researchers to manipulate the publication process. | | Vaccination coverage rate | The percentage of a population that has received a specific vaccine. This metric is crucial for assessing the effectiveness of public health interventions and understanding disease spread. |