Time for results in fight against research fraud

By Bernard Lane. THOSE who denounce fraudulent research face greater risks than the perpetrators, the journal Nature says in an editorial.
"For colleagues considering blowing the whistle, the risks are glaringly huge [because of] Britain's ludicrous libel laws,'' the journal says.
It says many in science would prefer not to talk about research misconduct, which is widespread according to a meeting of experts in London last week.
"A big part of the problem is the lack of perceived risk associated with misconduct,'' Nature says.
"Some fraudulent researchers might be sociopaths who don't care about the rules, but many others simply believe that they can anticipate the outcome of a research project, and see no downside to fabricating the required results to save time, or tweaking results to achieve a stronger signal.
"Either way, stronger action and punishments are needed to discourage such misbehaviour.''
The journal says the US Office of Research Integrity has the power to deny funding to researchers who are caught but quotes an expert who believes the office misses major misconduct.
"And the ORI can't initiate investigations: institutions must conduct their own inquiries first.''
Australia's own Research Integrity Committee, which opened last February, was established because in the past serious allegations have ended in multiple inquiries and a sense of paralysis.
Like its US counterpart, ARIC is limited to a review of how a university or medical research institute has handled a complaint of research misconduct.
It can make recommendations to the chiefs of the Australian Research Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council.
ARIC checks complaint-handling by institutions against a 2007 code for responsible conduct of research.
In the UK, Nature says, funding councils and universities plan to craft a "concordat'' of good practice in research, to which institutions would pledge themselves.
"This is laudable, but unlikely to strike fear into fraudsters and fabricators,'' the journal says.
ARIC is supposed to publish information about its work, without identifying individuals or institutions, at least once a year.
An ARC spokeswoman said the committee had finished one review, and another case had been referred to it for comment. She would not say the result of the review that had been finalised.
ARC chief executive Margaret Sheil said the committee was too new and the cases too few to decide how it would report.
"Until we get a body of data to think about, we don't really know how to present the data,'' Professor Sheil said.
Asked whether ARIC would publish information allowing the public to judge how institutions handled complaints, she said: "I think we will, I just don't know exactly what form that will take''.
She was not surprised that only two cases had come to ARIC since last February.
She pointed out that ARIC was not delving into past complaints and it took time for new complaints to work their way through an institution inquiry before a dissatisfied party could seek to involve ARIC.
She doubted claims that serious research misconduct was widespread.
"Cases where someone sets out to intentionally mislead or fabricate data are not very common at all,'' she said.
In its editorial Nature calls for the UK government to launch an anonymous survey on research misconduct, perhaps followed by a parliamentary inquiry and report.
"Funders and universities could then work together to establish common definitions of what counts as misconduct, and how it will be punished,'' Nature says.
"And if a reform of the libel laws goes ahead, journals and other scientists would be able to do more to highlight and expose miscreants.''