Rooting out scientific misconduct

Ivan Oransky,Barbara Redman
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adn9352
IF: 56.9
2024-01-12
Science
Abstract:Scientific misconduct is an issue rife with controversy, from its forms and definitions to the policies that guide how allegations are handled. A survey published nearly 15 years ago reported that 2% of researchers said they had fabricated or falsified data in their published work. This is not just an academic issue. Fake data promote ineffective or even dangerous treatments, for example, and thwart the discovery of real solutions for society. In the United States, the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) is tasked with rooting out misconduct in research funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Last October, ORI proposed changes to how it functions. The agency's recommendations—the first since 2005—have evoked mixed reactions, but the real problem is that ORI is underfunded and lacks the resources and authority needed to make a difference. Unless its charter is revised by Congress, the ORI can sadly do little more than tinker at the edges of scientific fraud.
multidisciplinary sciences
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The paper attempts to address the issue of scientific misconduct and the challenges and resource shortages faced by its regulatory body, the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) in the United States, in handling these issues. Specifically, the paper discusses the following aspects: 1. **Forms and definitions of misconduct**: Misconduct includes data fabrication, data falsification, etc. These actions not only affect academia but can also lead to invalid or dangerous treatments, hindering the discovery of real solutions for society. 2. **Functions and resource shortages of ORI**: ORI is responsible for overseeing misconduct in research funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). However, ORI's budget is only $12 million per year, which is far from sufficient to cope with NIH's funding scale of up to $48 billion. Additionally, ORI often faces internal disagreements, and leadership positions are frequently vacant, all of which affect its effectiveness. 3. **ORI's latest recommendations**: The new director of ORI, Sheila Garrity, has proposed some improvements, including clarifying the term "reckless" and increasing transparency. However, these measures still do not address fundamental issues such as the lack of sufficient personnel and budget, and the absence of subpoena power to compel witnesses to testify. 4. **Reactions from academia**: Academic institutions have criticized ORI's recommendations to increase transparency, arguing that this could violate privacy laws or distort actual investigation results. 5. **Progress in the publishing industry**: Some publishers have become more proactive in correcting the scientific record, with over 10,000 papers retracted in 2023, about two-thirds of which were due to misconduct. 6. **Future directions for improvement**: The paper calls on Congress to strengthen ORI's functions, providing it with more resources and power to more effectively combat scientific misconduct. In summary, the paper aims to explore how to better address scientific misconduct and proposes specific suggestions for improving the existing regulatory mechanisms.