[Paleopsych] NYT Op-Ed: Global Trend: More Science, More Fraud

[Premise Checker]

Global Trend: More Science, More Fraud
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/science/20rese.html

    By LAWRENCE K. ALTMAN and WILLIAM J. BROAD

    The South Korean scandal that shook the world of science last week is just 
one
    sign of a global explosion in research that is outstripping the mechanisms 
meant
    to guard against error and fraud.

    Experts say the problem is only getting worse, as research projects, and the
    journals that publish the findings, soar.

    Science is often said to bar dishonesty and bad research with a triple 
safety
    net. The first is peer review, in which experts advise governments about 
what
    research to finance. The second is the referee system, which has journals 
ask
    reviewers to judge if manuscripts merit publication. The last is 
replication,
    whereby independent scientists see if the work holds up.

    But a series of scientific scandals in the 1970's and 1980's challenged the
    scientific community's faith in these mechanisms to root out malfeasance. In
    response the United States has over the last two decades added extra 
protections,
    including new laws and government investigative bodies.

    And as research around the globe has increased, most without the benefit of 
such
    safeguards, so have the cases of scientific misconduct. Most recently, 
suspicions
    have swirled around a dazzling series of cloning advances by a South Korean
    scientist, Dr. Hwang Woo Suk.

    Dr. Hwang's research made him a national hero. His team outdid rivals by 
claiming
    to have extracted stem cells from cloned human embryos and to have cloned a 
dog,
    an extraordinary feat. Some observers hailed the breakthroughs as worthy of 
a
    Nobel Prize.

    Last month, critics charged that Dr. Hwang's published findings hid ethical
    lapses. And last week, collaborators accused the researcher of fabricating
    results in one of his landmark human cloning studies, published in Science 
last
    spring.

    Dr. Hwang has insisted on his innocence but said he would retract the 
Science
    paper. Now questions are growing about his earlier work, including Snuppy, 
the
    dog he claims to have cloned. Yesterday, news agencies reported that Seoul
    National University officials investigating Dr. Hwang's claims locked down 
his
    laboratory, impounded his computer and interviewed his colleagues, among 
other
    actions.

    "The Korean case shows us that we should be a lot more cautious," Marcel C.
    LaFollette, the author of "Stealing Into Print: Fraud, Plagiarism, and 
Misconduct
    in Scientific Publishing," said in an interview. "We have been unwilling to 
ask
    tough questions of people who are from other countries and whose systems are
    different because we were attempting to be polite."

    To be sure, most scientists resist pressures to cut corners and adhere to 
the
    canons of science, honoring the truth above all else. But surveys suggest 
that
    there are powerful undercurrents of misbehavior and, in some cases, outright
    fakery.

    In June, a survey of 3,427 scientists by the University of Minnesota and the
    HealthPartners Research Foundation reported that up to a third of the 
respondents
    had engaged in ethically questionable practices, from ignoring contradictory
    facts to falsifying data.

    Scientific fraud as a public danger burst into public view in the 1970's and
    1980's, when major cases of misconduct shook a number of elite publications 
and
    institutions, including Yale, Harvard and Columbia.

    In 1981, Dr. Donald Fredrickson, then the director of the National 
Institutes of
    Health, defended the standard view of science as a self-correcting 
enterprise.
    "We deliberately have a very small police force because we know that poor
    currency will automatically be discovered and cast out," he said.

    But fraud after fraud made the weaknesses of that system impossible to 
ignore. In
    the early 1980's, a young cardiology researcher, Dr. John R. Darsee, was 
found to
    have fabricated much data for more than 100 papers he wrote while working at
    Harvard and Emory Universities. His work appeared in The New England Journal 
of
    Medicine, The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and The 
American
    Journal of Cardiology, among other top publications.

    Startled, the federal government, beginning in 1985, took steps to augment 
the
    existing safeguards. For instance, Congress passed a law requiring public 
and
    private institutions to establish formal ways to investigate charges of 
fraud, in
    theory helping to assess damage, clear the air and protect the innocent.
    Eventually, the federal government established its own investigative body, 
now
    known by the Orwellian title of the Office of Research Integrity.

    Journal editors, at the center of the storm, also took collective action to
    enhance their credibility. In 1997, they founded the Committee on 
Publication
    Ethics, or COPE, "to provide a sounding board for editors who are struggling 
with
    how to best deal with possible breaches in research and publication ethics,"
    according to the group's Web site.

    Consisting mostly of editors of medical journals, the committee now has more 
than
    300 members in Europe, Asia and the United States.

    Still, the frauds kept coming. In 1999, federal investigators found that a
    scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in Berkeley, Calif., faked 
what had
    been hailed as crucial evidence linking power lines to cancer. He published 
his
    research in The Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences and F.E.B.S. 
Letters,
    a journal of the Federation of European Biochemical Societies.

    The year 2002 proved especially bleak. At Bell Labs, a series of 
extraordinary
    claims that seemed destined to win a Nobel Prize, including the creation of
    molecular-scale transistors, suddenly collapsed. Two of the world's most
    prestigious journals, Science and Nature, had published many of the 
fraudulent
    papers, underscoring the need for better safeguards despite two decades of
    attempted repairs.

    Experts now say that the explosive growth of science around the globe has 
made
    the problem far worse, because most countries have yet to institute the 
extra
    measures that the United States has put in place. That imbalance is at least
    partly responsible for a rise in scientific scandals in other countries, 
they
    say.

    Dr. Richard S. Smith, a former editor of The British Medical Journal (now 
BMJ)
    and the co-founder of the Committee on Publication Ethics, a group of 
journal
    editors, said in an interview that fraud was becoming increasingly difficult 
to
    root out because most countries' protective measures were either patchy or
    altogether absent. "It's hard enough to do something nationally, and to do 
it
    internationally is still harder," he said. "But that's what is needed."

    Contributing to the problem is a drastic rise in the number of scientific
    journals published around the world: more than 54,000, according to Ulrich's
    Periodicals Directory. This glut can confuse researchers, overwhelm
    quality-control systems, encourage fraud and distort the public perception 
of
    findings.

    "Foreign scientific journals have gone through the roof," said Shawn Chen, a
    senior associate editor at Ulrich's, nearly doubling to 29,098 in 2005 from
    15,300 in 1980. "We're having a hard time keeping up."

    While millions of articles are never read or cited - and some are written 
simply
    to pad résumés - others enter the pressure cooker of scientific and 
biomedical
    promotion, becoming lucrative elements of companies' business strategies.

    Until now, cases of questionable research in other countries have gotten 
little
    attention in the United States. But international editors, shaken by 
scandal, are
    now publicizing them and expressing concern. This year, the July 30 issue of 
BMJ
    devoted four articles to the subject, asking on its cover: "Suspicions of 
fraud
    in medical research: Who should investigate?"

    The articles discussed cases in which several publications, including BMJ, 
had
    stumbled in resolving serious doubts about the truthfulness of published 
studies
    done in Canada and India. The Canadian research claimed that a patented mix 
of
    multivitamins improved brain function in older people, and the Indian study 
said
    that low-fat, high-fiber diets cut by nearly half the risk of death from 
heart
    disease.

    The BMJ said that it published its own version of the Indian research in 
April
    1992 and that it had later investigated serious questions about the validity 
of
    the research for more than a decade before speaking out.

    The difficulty, the editors said, was that journals could go only so far in 
fraud
    inquiries before needing the aid of national investigative bodies and
    professional associations that oversee scientific research. But in the 
Indian and
    Canadian cases, they added, such bodies either did not exist or refused to 
help,
    so "the doubts are unresolved."

    The journal's editors, Dr. Fiona Godlee and Dr. Jane Smith, noted that the 
United
    States and Scandinavian countries had adopted institutional defenses and 
that
    Britain was considering such safeguards. Journals have an obligation to help 
the
    process, they concluded, by publicizing their difficulties and doubts.

    Most recently, the South Korean uproar illustrates the tangle of publishing 
and
    policing issues that can arise as science becomes increasingly competitive 
and
    international.

    "Now we're in a situation where we have these alliances between university
    researchers in countries and between institutions that really weren't 
working
    together before," said Dr. LaFollette, author of "Stealing Into Print."

    The journal Science, owned by the American Association for the Advancement 
of
    Science, published the research of Dr. Hwang of Seoul National University 
and his
    colleagues in March 2004 and June 2005, hailing it as pathbreaking.

    On Dec. 14, the magazine noted in a statement how fraud charges about the 
2005
    research had led to two investigations - one in South Korea and the other at 
the
    University of Pittsburgh, home to one of the article's 25 co-authors. "The
    journal itself is not an investigative body," Donald Kennedy, the magazine's
    editor, argued. "We await answers from the authors, as well as official
    conclusions, before we come to any ourselves."

    On Friday in a news conference, Dr. Kennedy emphasized that the magazine had 
made
    no accusations of fraud against Dr. Hwang. "As of now we can't reach any
    conclusions with respect to misconduct issues," he said.

    Independent scientists said it remained to be seen how thoroughly 
authorities in
    South Korea, where Dr. Hwang is a celebrity, would investigate the case and
    resolve knotty issues in what amounts to a highly public test of 
institutional
    maturity.

    Seoul National University is leading the inquiry. Its committee, which 
apparently
    has the authority to examine Dr. Hwang's raw data and to question his 
colleagues,
    may have the best chance of discovering how much of his work remains valid.

    But experts also cautioned that the committee's credibility requires the 
addition
    of outsiders, and perhaps scientists from other countries, who know the 
field and
    can help ensure that the investigation will retain its objectivity.

    "Unfortunately, individual institutions have an enormous conflict of 
interest,"
    said Dr. Smith, the former editor of The British Medical Journal. "It's a 
lot
    easier," he said, for such bodies when examining an allegation of fraud on 
their
    own, "to slide someone out of the organization or to suppress it 
altogether."