Scientific misconduct estimated to drain millions each year - SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN

Katherine Harmon

As speculation swirls around the status of possible investigations into research by the prolific Harvard psychologist Marc Hauser, a new study drills down to figure out the true cost of scientific misconduct.

Neither Harvard nor the federal government, which has funded some of Hauser's work that has been retracted or amended, has come forward with statements about the status of the scholar's work. But in the meantime, any investigation is likely costing the university—and possibly the government—a pretty penny, according to the new work, published online August 17 in PLoS Medicine.

Scientific misconduct is defined as "fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in proposing, performing or reviewing research or in reporting research results," according to the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI). A 2009 meta-analysis of misconduct studies found that about 14 percent of responding scientists reported having witnessed falsification by others—and 2 percent confessed (anonymously) to having been involved in fabrication, falsification or modification of data themselves.

An inquiry into scientific misconduct often leads to research disruption, evidence confiscation and lengthy meetings, all of which can add up quickly in terms of expenses such as faculty and staff labor. A typical case might run in the neighborhood of half a million dollars, concluded the authors of the new case study, led by Arthur Michalek of the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, N.Y. Taking as an example a real case from their own institution, they estimated the direct costs of that instance of misconduct to be about $525,000.

Michalek and his colleagues break down the costs into three categories: fraudulent research (grants, investments and equipment), investigation (faculty, personnel and external assistance) and remediation (loss of current or pending grants and others in the affected lab). These calculations don't take into account other potential costs (such as lawsuits and loss of future funding) and intangibles (such as loss of trust, demoralization of associates and any research conducted on the basis of fraudulent results).

In the case of the example at their institution, the researchers estimated that the most expensive aspect of the internal investigation was the demands on faculty, who spent hundreds of hours assessing the case both during and outside of formal meetings.

The new policy forum paper does not aim to be a universal measure of misconduct costs. "Our experience will likely not be wholly representative of other institutions," the researchers noted, acknowledging that their estimates thus far "amount to a 'best guess' scenario."

By their calculations, however, the 217 U.S. cases of misconduct reported to the OIR in 2009 would add up to more than $110 million each year. And the actual rate of misconduct remains uncertain, "owing largely to its clandestine nature as well as to the problem of underreporting," the researchers noted.

Steps to avoid wrongdoing in the first place—such as education, training, mentoring and monitoring—are not free either. But, Michalek and his colleagues estimate that, "the costs of these proactive activities pale in comparison to the costs of a single case of scientific misconduct."

Combating plagiarism: a shared responsibility

Sujit D Rathod

Indian J Med Ethics.2010 Jul-Sep;7(3)


ABSTRACT

Scientific progress depends on the free dissemination of original thinking and research. With the evidence base formed by publication, investigators develop and implement additional studies, and policy makers propose new laws and regulations. The ramifications of this evidence can affect millions of lives and reallocate considerable resources for programmes or research. As such, it is incumbent on investigators to conduct rigorous research, which precludes engaging in scientific misconduct such as falsification, fabrication and plagiarism. This article addresses the causes and consequences of plagiarism and the processes by which plagiarism is discovered. It concludes by considering the responsibilities of members of the research community in preventing and addressing plagiarism.

Japanese Plagiarism and Misrepresentation Case

Debora Weber-Wulff

A Japanese correspondent has alerted me to the strange case of Serkan Anilir. He is a German-born researcher of Turkish descent who was said to be an Assistant Professor at the Department of Architecture, Graduate School of Engineering, the University of Tokyo.

He has an impressive biography - but depending on which language you are reading (English, Japanese or Turkish) it is different. He claims to be a Turkish astronaut candidate for NASA, but closer inspection will show that this is his head photoshopped onto the body of Richard Hieb.

He has had "guest professorships" all over the world, according to the list is on the Turkish Wikipedia (translated here). It appears that he gave talks at these schools, but not that he had guest professorships. He is not listed in the official researchers lists for projects he supposedly worked on.

His publication list has a number of anomalies: wrong publisher; long article in a journal that only prints short ones; an examination of a given journal issue shows no article with that name; one publication can be found with the same name and co-author, but not with his name on it.

He also claims to be an Olympic gold medalist in skiing. However, there is no record of this.

Asahi Shinbum, a respected Japanese newspaper, picked this up and reported that they checked his reference that was supposed to be from the Turkish Air Force, but they denied that it was from them.

When things got hot in the Japanese press, an investigation into his dissertation was started. Since it turned out to be more than 40% plagiarized (later reports: 59%) the University of Tokyo revoked his doctorate in March of 2010 (press release in Japanese translated by Google) - the first time in the history of the university that they have done such a thing!

In the aftermath, his talk at TEDxTaipei in Taiwan and other places were mysteriously canceled. It is a shame that they were not open about this. He is no longer listed as a professor at the University of Tokyo. And the university has announced a crackdown on plagiarism.

Nice to hear of a success story, even if it did take 10 years!

Articles withdrawn from Open Access Database

Debora Weber-Wulff
I just ran across an article from 2007 about arXiv.org, one of the many Open Access databases, that withdrew 65 papers on General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology by 14 Turkish authors on the basis of the papers containing plagiarized material. One of the authors, a grad student at the Middle East Technical University in Ankara, was listed on 40 (!) of the papers. >>>