Scientific misconduct

[Guest guest]

Scientific misconduct: ORI survey is flawed

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v420/n6917/full/420739c_fs.html

Sir – The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology

(FASEB) abhors misconduct in research and has repeatedly emphasized

the need for clear, unambiguous and consistent definitions of

misconduct. The accusations you make in Opinion (Nature 420, 253;

2002) misrepresent our criticism of the US Office of Research

Integrity's (ORI's) flawed survey questionnaire.

We do not object to data collection on misconduct. Institutions

currently provide this information to the ORI on an annual basis.

Our opinion is that the proposed ORI survey has serious deficiencies

and will not produce useful data.

The ORI itself stated that previous attempts to measure misconduct

were unsuccessful because they strayed from the federal misconduct

definition. The issues of fabrication, falsification and plagiarism

are too important to be confused with other questions, many of which

involve legitimate differences of opinion. The survey's vague

questions, such as asking respondents how many times they have

observed colleagues " failing to cite references that contradict

their current research " or " refusing to give peers reasonable access

to unique research materials " , will give a misleading impression of

how research is done. Although it is easy to circle a number, there

may be wide variation in the ethical status of the examples being

reported by individuals. Simple summaries of complex issues will

lump legitimate actions together with malevolent cases.

Your editorial fails to inform readers that the ORI is not merely

proposing to measure " other " misbehaviour, but also " perceived "

misbehaviour, which is key to our objection. The survey will not

generate a measure of misconduct, but a recording of hearsay or

innuendo. For example, one question asks whether the respondent

knows of colleagues " citing an article they had not read firsthand " .

This orwellian approach, which encourages scientists to spy on each

other's reading habits, will not lead to clarification of the

ethical status of biomedical research.

You imply that there was a conspiracy behind the creation of the

current definition of research misconduct. This is incorrect. The

record clearly shows that there was an extended debate and many

opportunities for public comment. We have supported efforts to

improve education in research ethics, as I stated publicly in

remarks at the 10 October Institute of Medicine town meeting.

FASEB's August 2000 letter commenting on the draft PHS Policy for

Instruction in the Responsible Conduct of Research states: " Students

and trainees must have instruction in the responsible conduct of

research. But the extension of this requirement to 'all staff'

including subcontractors and consultants will result in an enormous

involvement of time and resources. " Our policy statements show our

consistent commitment to the responsible conduct of research. There

is no basis for implying that our position condones, supports or

protects unethical behaviour.

L. Teitelbaum

President, FASEB, Dept of Pathology and Immunology, Washington

University School of Medicine, MS 90-31-649, 216 Kingshighway, St

Louis, Missouri 63110, USA