e d i to ri a l
A Report on Scientific Misconduct I
n three previous editorials (Anal. Chem. 66, 1994, 288 A; 71, 153l A; 2001, 73, 5 A), I have discussed, respectively, the ACS Publications Ethical Guidelines, the scientific method, and ethics in science publications. In my 2001 editorial, I identified as one of the cornerstones of chemistry “a publication system that assures the credibility of published research results. The latter involves adherence to a code of ethical behavior on the part of editors, reviewers, authors, and the publisher.” Although problems in ethical behavior are rare, they do occur. A rather egregious example was recently reported by an external investigative team of distinguished scholars appointed by Lucent Technologies (Bell Labs) in response to allegations of falsified data (www.lucent.com/press/0902/ 020925.bla.html). Their report details misconduct by a young researcher, Jan Hendrick Schön, in papers published from 1998 to 2002. (An informative article written at about the time that the Bell Labs investigation began appeared in the July 5 issue of Science, pp 34–37.) The investigators concluded that scientific misconduct occurred and involved at least 16 of 24 articles (published in 8 journals) that were alleged to contain false data. The allegations included substitution of data, unrealistically precise data, and results contradicting known physics. The investigative team found experimental data fabricated using model equations, falsified data (data purported to represent material A taken from data for material B), failure to maintain a record of primary data (which apparently was erased, or possibly never existed), and data selected to better fit predicted trends (characterized by the author as an attempt to “present a more convincing case”). The published research, were it valid, described remarkable advances in condensed-matter physics and solid-state devices, including organic field-effect transistors and high-temperature superconductivity. The advances would have been of substantial scientific and technological importance. The investigative team commented that some of the published results may, in fact, represent attainable physical behavior, and may in the future be legitimately and independently established by other researchers. One hopes that this, at least in part, comes to pass, but the horrendous web of misconduct that permeates the body
of Schön’s work may dissuade others from pursuing it. These areas of research have, in my opinion, been dealt a serious blow. The research in question is not analytical chemistry, but misconduct has to be of concern to us all. We should try to learn by it; the committee’s report is grist for ethics lectures by faculty to their students. Furthermore, the investigative committee’s report was confined to establishing whether scientific misconduct had occurred, and it did not look at whether the Bell Lab management and the journals involved had performed properly. One presumes that these various institutions will conduct their own discussions. I have always felt that one does not change long-standing rules or practices that have performed well and/or been of benefit in the past because of an isolated breaking of the rules. Despite the clamor to do something, there should be a period of serious reflection. Some will say that Schön’s publications show that the peer-review process failed and should be changed. The reviewers did not catch the falsifications (at least not to my knowledge). I would say, on the other hand, that peer review (like democracy) is not perfect, and it is unrealistic to expect it to be always so. Peer review, however, has long been an invaluable system for evaluating the quality of written research reports. Also, the scientific method did work in the end; other investigators attempted to repeat Schön’s experiments, could not, and raised complaints that eventually led to the Bell Labs investigation. Journals have no investigative powers; they have only the power to refuse publication. Whether the journals involved displayed sufficient caution in publishing Schön’s work when warning signs started to appear from other researchers is certain to be discussed within those publications. However, in the end, taking corrective steps falls to the institution where the research was done, where investigative powers do exist. To their credit, researchers at Bell Labs did so, and the results emphasize that the scientific and business communities still believe in ethical behavior and will enforce their rules.
N O V E M B E R 1 , 2 0 0 2 / A N A LY T I C A L C H E M I S T R Y
549 A
