Blow that whistle at your own risk

Sara Reardon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02743-5

IF: 64.8

2024-08-22

Nature

Abstract:Physician scientist Nancy Olivieri describes hard-won lessons from decades of fighting for scientific integrity. Physician scientist Nancy Olivieri describes hard-won lessons from decades of fighting for scientific integrity.

multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Whistleblower’s decades long fight to save patients from dangerous research

Mun-Keat Looi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q526

2024-03-06

BMJ

Abstract:Nancy Olivieri chose to safeguard patients rather than protect her career when she blew the whistle on a drug trial she was leading. She tells The BMJ of her near 30 year fight for transparency and safety and why it will probably never be over

medicine, general & internal
Deep and fascinating insights into whistleblowing

Richard Smith

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q1147

2024-05-23

BMJ

Abstract:Why do people become whistleblowers? Why do most people not become whistleblowers? What becomes of whistleblowers? These are three of the questions that Carl Elliott, a professor of bioethics at the University of Minnesota, sets out to answer in the context of medical research in his beautifully written book The Occasional Human Sacrifice: Medical Experimentation and the Price of Saying No. (I suspect that the publisher rather than Elliott chose the title.)Elliott was inspired to try and answer these questions by his experience as a whistleblower against his own university. In June 2008 he read a newspaper account of the death by suicide of Dan Markingson. Markingson had been a participant in a clinical trial of an antipsychotic drug, Seroquel, funded by AstraZeneca. He had been experiencing full blown psychosis when admitted to the trial, raising questions about informed consent. His mother had not wanted him entered into the trial,...

medicine, general & internal
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
Recognizing the importance of whistleblowers in healthcare

Nicolle O'Neill

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NURSE.0000736912.14380.65

2021-04-01

Nursing

Abstract:Healthcare professionals who raise concerns about workplace safety or other problems should be praised as heroes and changemakers. However, some whistleblowers face retaliation for speaking out, and the incidence of retaliation cases against these employees has spiked during the COVID-19 pandemic. This article reflects on the role of whistleblowers and their importance to public accountability.
Is It Ethical to Be a ‘whistleblower’ During COVID‐19 Pandemic? Ethical Challenges Confronted by Health Care Workers in China

Junhong Zhu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14376

IF: 3.057

2020-01-01

Journal of Advanced Nursing

Abstract:Should health care workers (HCWs) tell the truth? The answer seems definite to be yes since every medical and nursing staff has taken an oath to the Hippocratic Oath or Nightingale Florence Pledge that only integrity and honesty deserve the trust of patients and commitment of saving life. HCWs who work within the medical system in normal times should follow biomedical ethics, and their primary responsibility is to safeguard the health rights and interests of individual patients.
Encouraging and Rewarding the Whistleblower in Research Misconduct Cases

Ian Freckelton

Abstract:There are many pressures that militate against work colleagues "blowing the whistle" or "ringing the bell" on each other in respect of research misconduct. These pressures result in a significant proportion of such conduct not coming to light at all or coming to light later or less straightforwardly than is desirable. There need to be meaningful incentives for colleagues to draw to the attention of authorities concerns that they have about adherence by others to their obligations in relation to research integrity. The United States has a distinctive process under the False Claims Act which provides significant financial encouragement to such persons, known as "relators" under the qui tam scheme, including in the context of proven research misconduct. This editorial reviews prominent occasions on which qui tam actions have been taken and considers the ramifications of a US$112.5 million settlement arrived at in 2019 involving research misconduct at Duke University. It discusses the advantages and disadvantages of the incentives that lie at the heart of the United States False Claims Act and canvasses whether it should be emulated in other countries.
Whistleblowing in medicine and in Homer's Iliad

Victoria Rodulson,Robert Marshall,Alan Bleakley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/medhum-2015-010673

Abstract:'Thinking with Homer', or drawing creatively on themes and scenes from Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, can help us to better understand medical culture and practice. One current, pressing, issue is the role of the whistleblower, who recognises and exposes perceived poor practice or ethical transgressions that compromise patient care and safety. Once, whistleblowers were ostracised where medical culture closed ranks. However, in a new era of public accountability, medicine looks to formally embrace whistleblowing to the point that not reporting transgressions can now constitute a transgression of professionalism. Where medical students identify with the history and traditions of medical culture, they inevitably find themselves in situations of conflicting loyalties if they encounter senior clinicians behaving unprofessionally. What are the implications of facing these dilemmas for students in terms of role modelling and shaping of character as a doctor, and how might a study of Homer help with such dilemmas? We suggest that a close reading of an opening scene in Homer's the Iliad can help us to better appreciate such ethical dilemmas. We link this with the early Greek tradition of parrhesia or 'truth telling', where frankly speaking out against perceived injustice is encouraged as resistance to power and inappropriate use of authority. We encourage medical educators to openly discuss perceived ethical dilemmas with medical students, and medicine as a culture to examine its conscience in a transition from an authoritarian to an 'open' society, where whistleblowing becomes as acceptable and necessary as good hygiene on the wards.
What Do You Do When You Can Do No More? Limited Resources, Unimaginable Environments, Personal Danger: What Have Previous Disasters Taught Us About Moral and Ethical Challenges?

Stephanie Smith,Jessica Kuipers

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2022.64

IF: 5.556

2023-04-13

Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness

Abstract:Historically, natural and manmade disasters create many victims and impose pressures on health-care infrastructure and staff; potentially hampering the provision of patient care and overloading clinician capacity. Throughout the course of history, clinicians have performed heroics to work well above their required duty, despite limitations, even putting their own health and safety at risk. In times when clinicians needed to either physically abandon patients or consider abandoning active treatment, we have seen extreme hesitancy to do so, fearing that they may be giving up too soon, that undue harm may come to patients, or even feeling unsure of legal or moral burdens that may ensue. In times when clinicians are placed in this unimaginable position, feeling isolated and overwhelmed, it is essential that they be supported and provided with resources to standardize decision-making.

public, environmental & occupational health
Witnesses to research wrongdoing

Joan E Sieber

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2012.7.5.3

Abstract:Research wrongdoing undermines scientific integrity, occurs widely, and takes many forms. We interviewed 135 NIH principal investigators who reported witnessing and responding to research wrongdoing. They reported taking a variety of actions, including formal notification of institutional officials, peer shaming, and one-on-one discussions with their peers to address wrongdoing that ranged from improper attribution of authorship to falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism. Unexpectedly, administrative mismanagement in handling allegations appeared more prevalent than any of the other forms of wrongdoing reported. Institutions may lack effective or efficient processes for managing even the most egregious cases of research wrongdoing. To assist institutions in designing effective, nimble programs, we suggest resources from which institutional officials may draw.
Retrospective reflections of a whistleblower: opinions on misconduct responses

Mary Allen,Robin Dowell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2013.822249

Abstract:Almost 10 years ago, when I was in my fourth year of graduate school, my fellow graduate students discovered that our thesis advisor had engaged in misconduct by falsifying and fabricating data in two grant applications. We informed the university and my advisor resigned. This event was a turning point in my life. Years later, I have gathered my thoughts and reflections on the experience. I believe we must first prevent what misconduct we can. But unfortunately some misconduct will still occur and in those circumstances we must respond to protect those affected by the misconduct and to progress beyond the event. In so doing, we get the most value out of scientific research.
Bullied in science: I quit my job and launched an advocacy non-profit

Morteza Mahmoudi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00706-4

IF: 64.8

2024-03-13

Nature

Abstract:Ahead of the Academic Parity Movement's annual conference, co-founder Morteza Mahmoudi describes how it supports whistle-blowers. Ahead of the Academic Parity Movement's annual conference, co-founder Morteza Mahmoudi describes how it supports whistle-blowers.

multidisciplinary sciences
Finding the truth in science

Elisabeth M. Bik

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41568-024-00702-w

IF: 78.5

2024-05-17

Nature Reviews Cancer

Abstract:In a 'publish or perish' culture, some scientists may resort to questionable research practices or even fraud. Scientific paper mills and artificial intelligence increasingly threaten the pursuit of truth in science. Structural changes, including heightened scrutiny of papers and authorship and better funding, are needed to ensure scientific integrity.

oncology
New NIH chief opens up about risky pathogens, postdoc salaries and the year ahead

Max Kozlov

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00086-9

IF: 64.8

2024-01-16

Nature

Abstract:Nature talks to Monica Bertagnolli about hot-button issues and her top priorities for 2024. Nature talks to Monica Bertagnolli about hot-button issues and her top priorities for 2024.

multidisciplinary sciences
Patients' health or company profits? The commercialisation of academic research

Nancy F Olivieri

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-003-0017-x

Abstract:This paper is a personal account of the events associated with the author's work at the University of Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children on a drug, deferiprone, for the treatment of thalassaemia. Trials of the drug were sponsored by the Canadian Medical Research Council and a drug company which would have been able, had the trials been successful, to seek regulatory approval to market the drug. When evidence emerged that deferiprone might be inadequately effective in a substantial proportion of patients, the drug company issued legal threats when the author proposed informing her patients and the scientific community. Until protests were made by international authorities in her field of research, the hospital and university did not adequately support the author's academic freedom and responsibilities as a medical practitioner. It is argued that underlying cause of this, and of other similar cases, is the political philosophy which is driving the commercialisation of universities and bringing about the deregulation of drug approval procedures. Together these changes constitute a serious threat to the public good.
Blowing the whistle during the first wave of COVID-19: A case study of Quebec nurses

Marilou Gagnon,Amélie Perron,Caroline Dufour,Emily Marcogliese,Pierre Pariseau-Legault,David Kenneth Wright,Patrick Martin,Franco A Carnevale

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.15365

Abstract:The experiences of nurses who blew the whistle during the COVID-19 pandemic have exposed gaps and revealed an urgent need to revisit our understanding of whistleblowing. Aim: The aim was to develop a better understanding of whistleblowing during a pandemic by using the experiences and lessons learned of Quebec nurses who blew the whistle during the first wave of COVID-19 as a case study. More specifically, to explore why and how nurses blew the whistle, what types of wrongdoing triggered their decision to do so and how context shaped the whistleblowing process as well as its consequences (including perceived consequences). Design: The study followed a single-case study design with three embedded units of analysis. Methods: We used content analysis to analyse 83 news stories and 597 forms posted on a whistleblowing online platform. We also conducted 15 semi-structured interviews with nurses and analysed this data using a thematic analysis approach. Finally, we triangulated the findings. Results: We identified five themes across the case study. (1) During the first wave of COVID-19, Quebec nurses experienced a shifting sense of loyalty and relationship to workplace culture. (2) They witnessed exceedingly high numbers of intersecting wrongdoings amplified by mismanagement and long-standing issues. (3) They reported a lack of trust and transparency; thus, a need for external whistleblowing. (4) They used whistleblowing to reclaim their rights (notably, the right to speak) and build collective solidarity. (5) Finally, they saw whistleblowing as an act of moral courage in the face of a system in crisis. Together, these themes elucidate why and how nurse whistleblowing is different in pandemic times. Conclusion: Our findings offer a more nuanced understanding of nurse whistleblowing and address important gaps in knowledge. They also highlight the need to rethink external whistleblowing, develop whistleblowing tools and advocate for whistleblowing protection. Impact: In many ways, the COVID-19 pandemic has challenged our foundational understanding of whistleblowing and, as a result, it has limited the usefulness of existing literature on the topic for reasons that will be brought to light in this paper. We believe that studying the uniqueness of whistleblowing during a pandemic can address this gap by describing why and how health care workers blow the whistle during a pandemic and situating this experience within a broader social, political, organizational context.
Navigating the Science System: Research Integrity and Academic Survival Strategies

Andrea Reyes Elizondo,Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-024-00467-3

2024-04-03

Abstract:Research Integrity (RI) is high on the agenda of both institutions and science policy. The European Union as well as national ministries of science have launched ambitious initiatives to combat misconduct and breaches of research integrity. Often, such initiatives entail attempts to regulate scientific behavior through guidelines that institutions and academic communities can use to more easily identify and deal with cases of misconduct. Rather than framing misconduct as a result of an information deficit, we instead conceptualize Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) as attempts by researchers to reconcile epistemic and social forms of uncertainty in knowledge production. Drawing on previous literature, we define epistemic uncertainty as the inherent intellectual unpredictability of scientific inquiry, while social uncertainty arises from the human-made conditions for scientific work. Our core argument-developed on the basis of 30 focus group interviews with researchers across different fields and European countries-is that breaches of research integrity can be understood as attempts to loosen overly tight coupling between the two forms of uncertainty. Our analytical approach is not meant to relativize or excuse misconduct, but rather to offer a more fine-grained perspective on what exactly it is that researchers want to accomplish by engaging in it. Based on the analysis, we conclude by proposing some concrete ways in which institutions and academic communities could try to reconcile epistemic and social uncertainties on a more collective level, thereby reducing incentives for researchers to engage in misconduct.
Dana-Farber retractions: meet the blogger who spotted problems in dozens of cancer papers

Max Kozlov

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00202-9

IF: 64.8

2024-01-26

Nature

Abstract:Nature talks to Sholto David about his process for flagging image manipulation and his tips for scientists under scrutiny. Nature talks to Sholto David about his process for flagging image manipulation and his tips for scientists under scrutiny.

multidisciplinary sciences
Paediatric Nurses' Personal Accounts of Being Told Not to Disclose Information to Children With Serious Illness—An Interpretative Phenomenological Study

Mandy (Mervat) El Ali,Jenny O'Neill,Lynn Gillam

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.16596

IF: 3.057

2024-11-06

Journal of Advanced Nursing

Abstract:Aims To explore the experiences, and perceptions of nurses who are told to withhold clinical information from children diagnosed with serious illnesses. Design An interpretative qualitative phenomenological design was used for the study. Sampling was purposive and data were collected using semi‐structured interviews from nurses working in a paediatric setting within the preceding 5 years. Nurse‐participants described their personal experiences of withholding situations ('non‐disclosure directives'). Their accounts of specific examples of situations ('personal accounts') were extracted from the interview transcripts and analysed using inductive content analysis to identify patterns and concepts within the descriptions. Data management was supported using Dedoose. Setting Nurse‐participants were interviewed face‐to face and online between November 2019 and December 2020. Participants Twenty‐six Australian nurses who have cared for seriously ill children within the preceding 5 years participated in the study. Results Thirty‐nine accounts of non‐disclosure situations (personal accounts) were extracted from interview transcripts. Four types of non‐disclosure were identified in the personal accounts: withholding information, temporary withholding, lying and combined withholding/lying. The inductive content analysis identified three key aspects of nurse‐participants' accounts: beliefs and perceptions (about the child and parents), the nature of the experience and feelings about the experience. Discussion Moral distress occurred when nurses' actions conflicted with their moral values in response to a non‐disclosure directive, particularly when asked to directly lie to children. Nurses felt disempowered by the parent's authority and the institutional hierarchy that limited their ability to participate in discussions where a non‐disclosure directive was given. Conclusion and Impact Nurse‐participants were afforded a platform for reflection which proved valuable in allowing them to process their experiences in a non‐disclosure situation. Recommendations Nurses directed to withhold medical information from children should be afforded opportunities for reflection to mitigate moral distress. Nurses should be included in the planning of ethically appropriate responses to withholding directives.

nursing
Key concepts in clinical epidemiology: Research Integrity definitions and challenges

Anna Catharina V. Armond,Kelly D. Cobey,David Moher

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111367

IF: 7.407

2024-04-20

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract:Research integrity is guided by a set of principles to ensure research reliability, and rigor. It serves as a pillar to uphold society's trust in science and foster scientific progress. However, over the past two decades, a surge in research integrity concerns, including fraudulent research, reproducibility challenges, and questionable practices, has raised critical questions about the reliability of scientific outputs, particularly in biomedical research. In the biomedical sciences, any breaches in research integrity could potentially lead to a domino effect impacting patient care, medical interventions, and the broader implementation of healthcare policies. Addressing these breaches requires measures such as rigorous research methods, transparent reporting, and changing the research culture. Institutional support through clear guidelines, robust training, and mentorship is crucial to fostering a culture of research integrity. However, structural and institutional factors, including research incentives and recognition systems, play an important role in research behavior. Therefore, promoting research integrity demands a collective effort from all stakeholders to maintain public trust in the scientific community and ensure the reliability of science. Here we discuss some definitions and principles, the implications for biomedical sciences, and propose actionable steps to foster research integrity.

public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services
Who Should Be Driving US Science Policy?

Carole R. Baskin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2019.0001

2019-01-01

Perspectives in Biology and Medicine

Abstract:Transparency was not always a desired aspect of medicine or STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) research. In the late 1940s, the Nuremberg Code heralded a new era of informed patient consent, research subject protection, and the view that the public had a stake in emerging technology and should have some knowledge and input into the directions of scientific research. This understanding intensified in the United States with the very public discussions leading to the promulgation of the NIH Guidelines for Recombinant DNA Research in the 1970s. The way in which oversight of recombinant DNA research was handled is still the exception rather than the rule. Starting in the 1990s, various terror incidents led to the enactment of statutes and issuance of regulations that undermined the ability of scientists and research institutions to self-regulate and in some cases to disseminate information freely. This essay explores how the scientific community got to this status quo, and how it could regain some measure of control despite competing needs for transparency and security, so that research critical to biosecurity is supported rather than impeded.

medicine, research & experimental,history & philosophy of science

Blow that whistle at your own risk

Whistleblower’s decades long fight to save patients from dangerous research

Deep and fascinating insights into whistleblowing

Rooting out scientific misconduct

Recognizing the importance of whistleblowers in healthcare

Is It Ethical to Be a ‘whistleblower’ During COVID‐19 Pandemic? Ethical Challenges Confronted by Health Care Workers in China

Encouraging and Rewarding the Whistleblower in Research Misconduct Cases

Whistleblowing in medicine and in Homer's Iliad

What Do You Do When You Can Do No More? Limited Resources, Unimaginable Environments, Personal Danger: What Have Previous Disasters Taught Us About Moral and Ethical Challenges?

Witnesses to research wrongdoing

Retrospective reflections of a whistleblower: opinions on misconduct responses

Bullied in science: I quit my job and launched an advocacy non-profit

Finding the truth in science

New NIH chief opens up about risky pathogens, postdoc salaries and the year ahead

Patients' health or company profits? The commercialisation of academic research

Blowing the whistle during the first wave of COVID-19: A case study of Quebec nurses

Navigating the Science System: Research Integrity and Academic Survival Strategies

Dana-Farber retractions: meet the blogger who spotted problems in dozens of cancer papers

Paediatric Nurses' Personal Accounts of Being Told Not to Disclose Information to Children With Serious Illness—An Interpretative Phenomenological Study

Key concepts in clinical epidemiology: Research Integrity definitions and challenges

Who Should Be Driving US Science Policy?