Comment▼ Fraud in science
T
he fraud in stem-cell research papers by Woo Suk Hwang has sent shock waves through scientific publishers everywhere. In a rare editorial move, the editor-in-chief of Science, Donald Kennedy, retracted two papers by Hwang and his team and advised the scientific community to consider the results invalid (Science 2006, 311, 335). The action followed an investigation by Seoul National University (South Korea) that reported that Hwang fabricated data, failed to produce any patient-specific stem-cell lines, misrepresented the sources and numbers of oocysts (human eggs) used in the research, and obtained eggs from lab workers in a potentially coercive fashion. Science continues to investigate the history of the case and exactly how the papers came to be published, in order to assess whether editorial procedures should be changed. This is not a solitary case of scientific misconduct. The British journal Lancet recently withdrew a paper by John Sudbo, who had invented complete patient case histories. In past years, we witnessed the debacle of the drug Vioxx because data were withheld that conflicted with published trials validating safety of the product. Wunderkind Hendrik Schoen of Lucent Technologies was caught fabricating data on organic superconductors and semiconductors published in the journals Nature, Science, Physical Review, and Applied Physics Letters. Then there was the infamous case of Cyril Burt, who published papers on nonexistent identical twins. Horace Freeland Judson’s book The Great Betrayal states that fraud falls into three categories: fabrication of data, falsification or withholding of data, and plagiarism (including stealing an idea from another researcher without attribution). Judson says that even the works of Newton, Mendel, Pasteur, Millikan, and Freud demonstrated elements of scientific misconduct. How much scientific fraud is out there? Estimates vary widely, and actual fraud is difficult to detect by reviewers and editors alike. Judson puts the number quite high and feels that scientists delude themselves into believing that the peer-review system is nearly perfect and that science is “self-correcting”. New technologies, like Photoshop, play a role by the ease with which images can be modified. The executive editor of the Journal of Cell Biology, Michael Rossner, reported to Nicholas Wade of the New York Times that about 20% of the journal’s accepted research papers have at least one photo that has been doctored in an unacceptable way. Bands may have been removed from a gel, a row of bands created to give the impression of controls in a different experiment, or images “cleaned up” to improve the impression. But according to Journal of Cell Biology editor © 2006 American Chemical Society
Ira Mellman of Yale, only 1% of the cases were actually intentional fraud. Fraud seems to be more frequently reported in sciences related to high-visibility, high-payoff products, such as pharmaceuticals, licensable patents, and medical breakthroughs. (Perhaps the monetary stakes are so low in environmental science and technology that no one bothers to defraud.) But even in our discipline, careers are made or broken on the basis of whether a certain paper is published in a prestige journal. And the classic inducements of fame—status and greed—are evident in every discipline, as in every Shakespeare play. How much fraud is there in ES&T research papers? I estimate that out of 2599 manuscripts we received last year, our editors dealt with 10–20 cases where scientific fraud was suspected or charged (0.4–0.8% of the total). Of course, these are only the cases that come to our attention, usually by mere chance when reviewers have access to a plagiarized article or have reviewed a similar paper or proposal elsewhere. By Judson’s categorization, plagiarism is our most frequent problem. However, fabrication and falsification of data are very difficult to detect unless replicate studies are undertaken by independent teams—and funding agencies don’t generally fund such studies. Improper identification of authors is one of our more frequent problems at ES&T, and this practice is glossed over in Judson’s book. Sometimes authors do not even realize they are listed on a paper. And sometimes they feel their contribution has been listed in the wrong order or that they contributed more of the science in the paper than is credited. A power imbalance exists among investigators that places junior investigators at a distinct disadvantage. Science is considering a more detailed Conflict of Interest statement, which would require all authors to specify their contributions and to sign statements of concurrence with the research. We currently have neither of these practices at ES&T, but I can assure you we are considering them. Quality science informs sound public policy, and unless we take that charge very seriously, we will undermine our credibility with the public and decision makers alike.
Jerald L. Schnoor Editor
[email protected] MARCH 1, 2006 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ■ 1375
