 |
 |
Dear Sadequa and Amy You raise some interesting points regarding personal integrity. I would be interested to know whether our list users consider it to be our responsibility to advise journal editors if we are aware that researchers are likely to submit a manuscript involving bad science (possibly to the neglect of statistical (or other) advice we have provided). Alternatively, do we leave the investigation entirely to the journal reviewers and editors, even if we are aware this may perpetuate bad practise? Best wishes Margaret >________________________________ > From: Amy Price <[log in to unmask]> >To: [log in to unmask] >Sent: Wednesday, 22 August 2012, 5:42 >Subject: Re: Fabrication or falsification of data or research findings > > > >Dear Sadequa, >People that are smart but inexperienced and they may begiven only part of the information and are often used as scapegoats. It is striking how many new researchers are put on the chopping block and their careers are ruined. In my honest opinion ethics training is not specific enough about how people can get igorntly and innocently drawn in. People try to keep jobs, positions, trust others against their own instinct and training etc but when people are caught the ringleaders do not stand behind them. It could happen to any of us. > > >Also there are repercussions for being known as a whistleblower and the backlash that comes from the unethical parties fighting back. No one wants to be a snitch and it is common to think it is just us being suspicious or that things will get better. We are taught to go through academic channels or civil procedures etc but in the case of serious issues if I had to face this again I would go straight to criminal investigators and get out immediately no matter what it cost me. In my case I was not yet a scientist, (just call me Patsey) technically I was free from misconduct but people trusted me and I in turn trusted those who gave me mis-information to share. > > >When people race etc mistakes are made and things are overlooked. In a biomedical paper I assisted in the review of the lead reviewer asked what I thought. I instinctively did not trust the paper and critically appraised it using CASP and there were issues, I mentioned this and also reiterated my inexperience in the field. The experienced scientist and reviewer just looked at me and said "really Amy?" He then magnified the data diagrams 1000 times and the fraud was breathtakingly clear. It is good to remember that whatever we do leaves traces and that at the end of the day even more importantly we are the ones that face the person in the mirror. The blame game just shifts responsibility, it makes no difference what others around you do, you are responsible fro what comes into your life and your hands to be a fsithful steward over. That being said we can get caught up in investigating the wrongs and lose sight of the good science people do every day. > > >I found these sites also helpful. >Bad ScienceFor the methods and patterns of junk science exposed, Dr. Ben Goldacre’s book BAD SCIENCE and his TED talk is excellent. Ben Goldacre's column from The Guardian is in weblog format. It covers media misrepresentations of science, with a particular focus on medicine. Includes a forum. >National Institutes of Health - U.S. Department of Health and Human Services >National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences > >Research Ethics Timeline (1932-Present) >by David B. Resnik, J.D., Ph.D. >http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/timeline/index.cfm > >FDA Warning Letters- Food and Drug Administration >FDA warning letters are also a good source of seeing how and where things have gone wrong in the science and medicine communities and provide an interesting stream of research methodology issues. >www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/default.htm > > >Best regards, > > >Amy Price > > >From: Sadequa Shahrook <[log in to unmask]> >Reply-To: Sadequa Shahrook <[log in to unmask]> >Date: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 11:51 PM >To: <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Re: Fabrication or falsification of data or research findings > > >I am speechless reading the number and type of retractions on RETRACTION WATCH! Thanks to everyone for their valuable input in this discussion which is extremely important for all the researchers and specially, for the novice researchers like me. Such blogs would be increasingly helpful to question and re-question researchers whether deliberately or unintentionally, their works have any forms of misconducts! Also, if the number of whistle-blowers increases, the human-kind would benefit the best due to the application of good research ethics. > > >I would like to share some of my thoughts here, but apologizing in advance for any wrong thoughts/opinions. I had no idea (yet had been doubtful) of such delinquencies made by those senior researchers working for the renowned institutes! Yet, I was doubtful (but surprised seeing the magnitude) because I had been wondering (not anymore) how come some researchers could be publishing so many papers within a short amount of time! Although the evidences blogged on RETRACTION WATCH have mostly been from clinical research, I think other areas such as social science would provide plentiful, if can be disclosed. Probably it is the time to pose the very important question "why such misconducts are happening and mounting up?" Among several plausible causes one of the most influential could be our superiors, in most of the cases, our professors who set up a target of publishing 'X' number of papers in a year on 'Y' journals which are generally with high impact factor; a high-stake is also placed before the researchers e.g. 'Z' number of publication could rise their salary up or could give them a promotion. In a situation like this, subordinate researchers particularly, those who usually possess weak-personality, are novice, want to keep up their jobs and are willing to build a smooth career graph, do join in the 'speed-race' of publishing. Here someone might argue that promotion and salary raise are the common forms of motivational aspirations or might question how many publications/year should be a standard practice? These questions would surely require a healthy debates before reaching reasonable conclusions. > > >Now... in this 'racing', the proportion of people who are caring about the research ethics or willingly/unwillingly 'overseeing' the wrong-doings as well as the plausible deadly consequences in human health, that is the crucial question. This 'racing' may have significant effect in education industry too - a student could be seriously affected if supervised by a professor with such deadly-ambition. Due to the rush in publishing findings out of students' researches, the natural process of teaching/learning could be ignored/violated resulting most possibly a paper but there would be less probability that student would be able to thoroughly learn his course and to be particular, the research basics which is a time-consuming process. Additionally, students could be bullied by the supervisors (both immediate or professor) throughout the 'speed-race' for 'not being productive enough' to writing up a paper and so might be considered as 'stupid'. Well, we know the possible consequences of bullying specially, in young - academic bullying could hinder normal learning ability, could decrease productivity and so forth and beyond all, could destroy students confidence level and with a possible life-time loss. Therefore, academic ethics should also be addressed while addressing the ethics in publishing research. Because those who are now learners are likely to be the future leaders in various research fields. Therefore, if the good ethics need to be applied for the human well-being, then it should start from the root extending to every scope to grasp. > > >Thank you very much for your reading. Any comments/thoughts on this would be warmly welcomed. > > >Best wishes, > > >Shahrook' > > > > > > > > >On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:44 AM, Margaret MacDougall <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >Dear Paul >> >> >>Thanks for your valued reply. This review is certainly worth a read. >> >> >>Best wishes >> >> >>Margaret >> >> >> >>>________________________________ >>> From: Ash Paul <[log in to unmask]> >>>To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>; "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> >>>Sent: Saturday, 18 August 2012, 8:06 >>> >>>Subject: Re: Fabrication or falsification of data or research findings >>> >>> >>>Dear Margaret, >>>There was a 2009 systematic review of this subject published in PLOS: >>>How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data >>>http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738 >>>The authors added a rider saying that their survey results were possibly more conservative than the real world results. >>>Regards, >>>Ash >>> >>> >>>From: Margaret MacDougall <[log in to unmask]> >>>>To: [log in to unmask] >>>>Sent: Friday, 17 August 2012, 21:01 >>>> >>>>Subject: Fabrication or falsification of data or research findings >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Hello >>>> >>>> >>>>Apologies for cross-posting >>>> >>>> >>>>I would value advice on any reputable references which give an indication of the prevalence of recognized cases of fabrication or falsification of data or research findings within the context of health-related research. >>>> >>>> >>>>Many thanks >>>> >>>> >>>>Best wishes >>>> >>>> >>>>Margaret >>>> >>>> > >