The Management of Scientific Integrity within Academic Medical Centers

Peter Snyder, Linda C. Mayes, William E. Smith

• Publisher: Academic Press
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9780124059290
• Topic: Biological Sciences
• Subtopic: Biology
• Index: Biological Sciences

The Management of Scientific Integrity within Academic Medical Centers discusses the impact scientific misconduct has in eight complex case studies. Authors look at multifaceted mixtures of improper behavior, poor communication, cultural issues, adverse medical/health issues, interpersonal problems and misunderstandings to illustrate the challenge of identifying and managing what went wrong and how current policies have led to the establishment of quasi legal processes within academic institutions. The book reviews the current global regulations and concludes with a section authored by a US federal court judge who provides his perspective on the adequacy of current regulations and policies.

• Shows how complex most scientific integrity cases are, and how little is clear cut in the adjunction of each
• Discusses how timely and important scientific misconduct is, and its impact on science at large
• Reviews the current regulations and policies that guide how we manage scientific integrity
• Examines this complexity in 8 anonymous case studies
• Concludes with a section authored by an expertly qualified federal court judge

Chapter 1

Introduction

Research Misconduct in Biomedical Research Institutions

Abstract

As we age, we look for simple lifestyle changes that might serve to protect our health and stave off dreaded diseases. And, at the same time, many adults enjoy a delicious glass of wine with a good meal. If we could pair together a plateful of cardiac health along with a glass of a full-bodied Cabernet Sauvignon? Fantastic! Over the past 20 years, there have been numerous reports concerning the benefits of moderate alcohol consumption (particularly red wine in first reports) in maintaining cardiac health, decreasing the risk of certain forms of cancer, and even as an incremental lifestyle protective factor for slowing the progression of age-related memory decline and Alzheimer’s disease. The basic relationship(s) between modest alcohol ingestion and positive health effects have now been replicated by dozens of laboratories and clinical investigators, and so the risk of a false-positive association (a Type I error) between alcohol and/or other ingredients of alcoholic beverages (e.g., resveratrol), and certain health benefits, is unlikely. What remains unclear, however, is the strength of this relationship. That is, just how much benefit is derived from the glass or two of wine with dinner?

Keywords

academic medical center; ethics; fraud; plagiarism; research misconduct; scientific integrity

The management of research misconduct is central to the entire mission of an academic medical center. Without clear, transparent policies and procedures to guide the oversight of research ethics and scientific integrity, the veracity of the entire research enterprise is lost. The conduct of research is a human activity, and subject to the same human failings and errors of judgment that appear occasionally in any other field of human endeavor. In this chapter we describe the singular importance that the oversight of research integrity plays in the well-being of an academic medical center, and the we describe the rationale for this book and the chapters to follow.

As we age, we look for simple lifestyle changes that might serve to protect our health and stave off dreaded diseases. And, at the same time, many adults enjoy a delicious glass of wine with a good meal. If we could pair together a plateful of cardiac health along with a glass of a full-bodied Cabernet Sauvignon? Fantastic! Over the past 20 years, there have been numerous reports concerning the benefits of moderate alcohol consumption (particularly red wine in first reports) in maintaining cardiac health (cf. Lavy et al., 1994; Bognar et al., 2013), decreasing the risk of certain forms of cancer (cf. Surh et al., 1999; Luo et al., 2013), and even as an incremental lifestyle protective factor for slowing the progression of age-related memory decline and Alzheimer’s disease (cf. Russo et al., 2003; Wang et al., 2006; Pasinetti, 2012). The basic relationship(s) between modest alcohol ingestion and positive health effects have now been replicated by dozens of laboratories and clinical investigators, and so the risk of a false-positive association (a Type I error) between alcohol and/or other ingredients of alcoholic beverages (e.g., resveratrol), and certain health benefits, is unlikely. What remains unclear, however, is the strength of this relationship. That is, just how much benefit is derived from the glass or two of wine with dinner?

One well-respected researcher to pose this question was Dipak K. Das, M.D., the former director of the cardiovascular research center at the University of Connecticut Health Sciences Center (Farmington, Connecticut). Dr Das had a reputation for scholarly contributions to this field, built over many years, with a specific focus on the health benefits of resveratrol, a naturally occurring phenol that is abundant in red wine. Dr Das had authored or coauthored more than 100 scholarly articles on this general topic, and his work had been highlighted in numerous popular magazines and television news programs (e.g., CBS network’s 60 Minutes). Although his general findings and conclusions have been replicated by other independent research groups, Dr Das’s data seemed to suggest that red wine might be a powerful, key dietary approach to slowing the ravages of sedentary lifestyles and aging—even being referred to by the Science Daily website as “exercise in a bottle” (03 July, 2011: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110630131840.htm). Were his data too good to be true?

In early 2012, following a lengthy internal investigation by the university’s Research Integrity Officer (RIO) and an appointed review committee, and in response to an “anonymous tip” in 2008, the institution found 145 separate instances of fabricated or falsified data by Dr Das, leading to the issuances of notification to 11 separate journals, in an attempt to correct the scientific record by asking these journals to publish ‘retractions’ of his papers. As a result of this investigation, the university declined and returned nearly $1,000,000.00 in Federal grant funding, closed his laboratory, and terminated his tenured professorship.

Another example was the work of psychologist Diederik Stapel, professor of cognitive social psychology and dean of the School of Social and Behavioral Sciences at Tilburg University in the Netherlands as well as founder of the Tilburg Institute for Behavioral Economics Research. Staple was regarded as one of Europe’s top researchers with his findings about implicit contextual cues that motivate social behavior included findings such as how the presence of wine glasses changes meal behavior and table manners, that messy environments promote social discrimination, and that meat eaters are more antisocial than vegetarians. Widely published with over 250 peer-reviewed articles, book chapters, and conference proceedings, Professor Stapel was well-known and widely sought out as a collaborator given his innovative questions and ability to accomplish seemingly complex data collections in a timely manner. In 2011, an extensive investigation revealed that Professor Stapel had consistently fabricated data since at least 2004 with at least 55 published papers containing fraudulent data. In a pattern that appears to have extended well over a decade, Dr Stapel would team up with a student or colleague to design a study to test one of the collaborator’s hypotheses. Dr Stapel would carry out the study and process the data. He provided his collaborator with a data file ready for analysis that was in reality entirely fabricated. In August 2011, three of Stapel’s Ph.D. students brought forward allegations of data fabrication because they had been unable to obtain raw data from Dr Stapel when they repeatedly requested the files. Indeed, a number of his students graduated with their doctorates without ever completing an experiment. The investigation spread beyond Tilburg University to include the University of Amsterdam where Dr Stapel received his doctorate and the University of Groningen where he was employed prior to his professorship at the Tilburg University. The University of Amsterdam revoked his doctorate and Stapel resigned his professorship in the midst of ongoing investigations revealing more instances of complete data fabrication (Jarrett, 2013).

What motivated both of these scientists? What might compel an accomplished, well-trained scientist to risk his entire career in this manner? While there is excellent work that supports the health benefits of resveratrol as part of a healthy diet, it turns out that Dr Das’s work—and, in fact, a good portion of his professional career—was proven to be disreputable. Did Dr Das simply believe that because he had proven his basic hypothesis to be correct early on, that all of his subsequent papers were less important and did not actually require valid data? Did Dr Stapel feel so confident of this observations and theories that he did not require data to confirm his beliefs? Indeed, when interviewed while the investigations were ongoing, Dr Stapel said: “I did not withstand the pressure to score, to publish, the pressure to get better in time. I wanted too much, too fast. In a system where there are few checks and balances, where people work alone, I took the wrong turn (Brabants Dagblad, October 2011, translated from Dutch)”.

Still, neither Drs Das nor Stapel really address what motivated them to begin and continue data fabrication despite early successes and respect by the scientific community. To frame these questions more broadly, we might ask what are the motivating forces that would lead a scientist to commit acts of research misconduct (including, but not limited solely to fabrication of data), in order to advance his or her own research and career? Science is a social enterprise; and like all human activities, science is driven as much by the hopes, dreams, and vested interests of its practitioners as it is by the rational quest for discovery and understanding. Indeed, the wish and need for professional advancement and progression are strongly motivating, especially when science is conducted within the academy where scientific ‘productivity’ and reputation are the currency of faculty promotion. As scientific researchers, our behavior and professional conduct are molded by many hard years of education and training in scientific methodology. We grow comfortable with exploring the boundaries of current understanding. Yet unlike many professions that require their practitioners to limit their judgment and actions to factual record, scientists routinely glide along the razor’s edge between the current state of factual knowledge and the wonder of new discovery. As such, the self-perceived ability to remain cautious in interpreting data, to recognize the limits of our own knowledge, and our deep appreciation for the awe-inspiring complexity of our natural world and the phenomena that we study, all become part of our professional identity.

As scientists, we are proud of our finely honed intellectual skills; and our beliefs in our own objectivity and integrity rest on our adherence to proper scientific methods and the testing of refutable, falsifiable hypotheses. And yet occasional scientific misconduct occurs. Perhaps it is simply because, in spite of our training, experience, and skills, we are human, and prone to the same moral and ethical failings that are characteristic of many segments of our larger society and culture. We want to advance our careers, to be promoted within our institutions or to be attracted by enticing career opportunities elsewhere, to provide needed resources to our students and fellows, to complete important work that will be remembered long after we are gone, and to provide financially for our immediate and extended families. All of these goals and ambitions are advanced by designing, accomplishing and publishing new research, building and managing valuable resources, attracting media attention, and garnering the support of our professional peers and home institutions. Our reputations, our authority, and ultimately our career and economic success depend on these key accomplishments and, broadly speaking, the pursuit of these goals often seems to be at the root of scientific misconduct when it occurs.

In a poignant essay, entitled “Conduct, Misconduct and the Structure of Science” Professors James Woodward and David Goodstein teach us that the most admirable of ethical principles—the very ideology that Western scientists are reared on—lie in direct conflict with the actual practice of science as an occupation and social endeavor (Woodward and Goodstein, 1996). These ethical tenets arise from the earliest theory of scientific method, as espoused by the English Renaissance philosopher and statesman, Sir Francis Bacon (1561–1626). Bacon, who was influenced in his thinking by Plato, asserted that scientists must act as disinterested observers of nature, with minds that are free of prejudices or preconceptions. With this belief held as central to competent practice as a scientist, Woodward and Goodstein offer a list of 15 corollary principles that conform to the Baconian ideal. Who among us would not generally agree with this sampling of principles to govern ethical conduct as a scientist?

• A scientist should never be motivated to do science for personal gain, advancement, or other rewards.

• When an experiment or an observation gives a result contrary to the prediction of a certain theory, all ethical scientists should question that theory.

• Scientists must report what they have done so fully that any other scientist can reproduce the experiment or calculation; science should be an open book, not comprised of guarded secrets.

• Financial support for scientific work and access to scientific facilities should be shared democratically, not concentrated in the hands of a favored few.

Woodward and Goodstein argue that although we aspire to live by these principles, and others also listed in their essay, they are “defective,” they undermine the logical structure of science, and they are not consistent with the reality of scientific careers (especially in academic biomedical institutions). As noted above, scientists are motivated by the opportunity to make a lasting mark on their communities, be remembered by their peers for good work, provide well for their children and families, and achieve other markers of success as a professional, spouse, and care-provider. Further, scientists compete with their peers for limited funding support for their work, and within the academy, scientists are always motivated by the need for professional advancement as much if not more than the excitement of discovery and advancement of knowledge. These complex and often conflicting motivations often lead to temptations to publish too soon, to overinterpret a finding, to selectively publish data consistent with a theory or previous findings, to oversimplify a problem or solution, as well as more patently unethical subterfuge of the scientific process (e.g., stealing, falsifying or fabricating data, or intentional misrepresentation). At the same time, these very same complex motivating factors are not inherently corruptive and often work to propel scientific discoveries forward. Woodward and Goodstein note that “behavior that may seem at first glance morally unattractive, such as the aggressive pursuit of economic self-interest, can, in a properly functioning system, produce results that are generally beneficial.”

There are good reasons to seriously consider the validity of the Woodward and Goodstein argument, that the corollary Baconian principles of scientific conduct are often in conflict with the complex personal, professional, and cultural motivations impacting the scientific enterprise, and this conflict shapes how science is both practiced in reality and also what brings vitality and innovation to the scientific process. As one example, the philosopher, Philip Kitcher, has made the point that because the first person who makes a scientific discovery usually attracts most of the credit, investigators are encouraged to pursue a broad range of different lines of inquiry—including avenues of research that may be thought by many to ...

Table of contents

• Cover image
• Title page
• Table of Contents
• Copyright
• Dedications
• Foreword
• About the Authors
• Acknowledgments
• Chapter 1. Introduction: Research Misconduct in Biomedical Research Institutions
• Chapter 2. Research Integrity: The Legal and Regulatory Landscape
• Case Studies
• Appendix 1. Federal Policy on Research Misconduct
• Appendix 2. Lifespan System-wide Policy
• Appendix 3. Policies and Procedures for Dealing with Allegations of Academic Misconduct at Yale University
• Index