Extra scrutiny needed to prevent falsification of scientific research
A consensus has emerged during the last few years on the definition of research misconduct in science and medicine, according to a a leading bioethicist.
David Resnik, a bioethicist at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), said a broader understanding of falsification of medical research has resulted from several high-profile cases over the last two decades at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), including research on infectious diseases. “The new definition really covers a lot of areas of research. It now states that ‘research misconduct means the fabrication, falsification or plagiarism for proposing, performing or reviewing research, or in recording research results.’ Misconduct does not, however, include honest error or differences of opinion.â€
Speaking recently at the University of Delaware, Resnik said that generally when a misconduct finding happens, the government stipulates that the researcher or researchers will not receive funding for a specific duration of time — another five years,†said Resnik. But, some scientists could be held liable for civil fraud or criminal fraud, because basically what they are doing is deceiving the government.
Resnik elaborated on this by citing the historical case of research misconduct by nationally recognized drug therapy researcher, Stephen E. Breuning, who in 1988 became the first scientist to be prosecuted, fined and incarcerated for falsification of scientific research, according to press reports.
As a large part of research funding for major scientific experiments typically comes from government-affiliated agencies, such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the NIH, Resnik said that as more high-profile cases of flawed research came to light in recent years, the government began to look more closely at its definition of misconduct. Examples include the following:
* The 1986 Thereza Imanishi-Kari case.
* The 2006 convictions of American medical scientist Eric Poehlman.
* South Korean biomedical scientist Hwang Woo-Suk.
These three research misconduct incidents in recent years that caused the U.S. government to tighten its definitions of–and its penalties for–fraudulent research.
“In terms of South Korea, this was a problem for them, because they didn’t really have a proper procedure in place for investigating research misconduct,†Resnik said.
Since the journal Science had been the first to publish Hwang Woo-Suk’s findings, however, Resnik said, and because all major scientific breakthroughs have a worldwide impact, Hwang Woo-Suk’s research caused the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) to rethink its policies.
“They were ashamed that something as obvious as should have slipped through,†he said. “And so their new policy stated that really high-impact papers would be given extra scrutiny.â€
NIH also adopted a more cautious approach, Resnik continued, and in the wake of Poehlman’s debunking, a debate ensued in the U.S. about the definition of research misconduct and about preventive measures.
The federal definition of research misconduct, finalized three years ago, and accepted by almost all federal agencies, Resnik emphasized, now not only is more comprehensive, but also covers more ground, including at the outset in grant proposals, where the rules also apply.
“The new definition really covers a lot of areas of research,†Resnik said.
– by Gene J. Koprowski, Editorial Director

Bioethics now a key concern for scientists.
Posted: April 23rd, 2008 under Feature Stories.
Comments: none




 


