Medical research to cure disease and bring health may well be one of the most important things science can contribute. We are often at the most vulnerable place when we look to scientists to help us make the best choices for our health- and even our lives.
On the website of
The Office of Research Integrity today I found 7 cases of research fraud. That list only includes those who currently have an imposed administrative action against them. Looking at the places and studies these fraudulent findings are being manifested it is easy to recognize the people these fraudulent studies will affect.
I was interested to find out what the penalty is for such a breach of confidence and waste of assets. In the case of Anil Potti who claimed to have found a genomic technology to determine the outcome of lung cancer with 90% accuracy in a scientific journal in 2006-2007.
The ORI declared Potti's data "altered" and stated the research was not only flawed but falsified to receive further grant funding. As a penalty, he agreed to a 5-year supervision of his studies. He is still practicing medicine, and after his punishment, he will be free to do un-tethered research once again.
There are also significant monetary rewards to the falsification of information. Falsified findings continue funding. There is big money for the actual publishing of these conclusions in scientific journals. When you weigh the very ineffective policing of these studies versus the monetary potential, we have created a perfect storm for actually rewarding poor ethics.
A prime example of this phenomenon is the case of Dr. Carlo Croce of Ohio State University. There are over 30 allegations of falsification against his work. One particular case of forgery is so obvious it is a teaching example of scientific research misconduct. Despite that, Dr. Croce has never faced any repercussions.
These cases are self-governed leaving them in an awkward position. Actual findings of misconduct often lead to the suspension of federal funding which leaves their facilities the painful choice of money or ethics. Without funding, all studies halt, and we lose any hope of new development.
In 2009, Daniele Fanelli of the University of Edinburgh carried out a meta-analysis that pooled the results of 21 surveys of researchers asked whether they or their colleagues had fabricated or falsified research.
The question is why don't we give incentive for merit? Value and integrity are owed a nod, and by rewarding truth and a job well done despite its outcome, we are not laying the path to the temptation to falsify. Science is nothing more than a collection of failures that may or may not eventually lead to an answer. Science must be supported for its effort and integrity if it is to move ahead with any form of real trust in its merits.
I believe it is time to re-think our motivations and assess our failures. We need to be more efficient at successfully getting what we are after. We start out with the best of intentions but even upon finding our methods are producing the wrong outcomes we seem very hesitant to back up and try something else. I am reminded of a quote by another very famous scientist: "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Albert Einstein
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins133991.html
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins133991.html
