scientists and ethics

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Bradley Malin <malin () cs cmu edu>
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 18:24:39 
To:dave () farber net
Subject: scientists and ethics

Dave, in Nature this month:

http://www.nature.com/nsu/040301/040301-9.html


  Scientists behaving badly

Journal editors reveal researchers' wicked ways.
4 March 2004

JIM GILES

They lie, they cheat and they steal. Judging by the cases described by a 
group of medical journal editors, scientists are no different from the 
rest of us.

Last week's annual report^1 
<http://www.nature.com/nsu/040301/040301-9.html#b1> of the Committee on 
Publishing Ethics details the misdemeanours that the group of journal 
editors grappled with in 2003. Although the number of cases - 29 - is 
tiny compared with the tens of thousands of papers published in medical 
journals every year, the cases cover a wide range of unethical activity, 
from attempted bribery to potential medical malpractice.

Many of the tricks will be familiar to schoolchildren. Two complaints 
concern cases where researchers were accused of copying someone else's 
work. When editors investigated, they agreed that the papers were almost 
identical versions of previously published material, and that plagiarism 
was the most likely explanation.

Confronted with the evidence, researchers behind one paper insisted that 
their paper contained only 5% overlap with the original. Another author, 
when eventually reached by mobile phone, admitted some similarities; but 
at that point the call ended abruptly.

Duplicate publication, where the same paper is printed twice in 
different journals to boost publication records, is the most common 
offence, accounting for seven of 29 cases. This fits with previous 
studies of the practice.

A 2003 survey of opthalmology journals estimated that at least 1.5% of 
all papers are duplicates^2 
<http://www.nature.com/nsu/040301/040301-9.html#b2>. Some researchers 
seem to have perfected the art: a study released last month identified 
two papers that had each been published five times^3 
<http://www.nature.com/nsu/040301/040301-9.html#b3>.

Compulsory action

Conflicts of interest also rear their head in the report. One journal 
ran a paper on passive smoking from authors who omitted to mention that 
they had received funding from the tobacco industry. Further probing 
revealed that the author had received tobacco company money throughout 
his career and even lobbied for the industry.

In cases where the misconduct concerns medical treatments, the report 
becomes more disturbing. The editors discuss several studies where 
medical procedures were run by researchers who did not have proper 
ethical clearance.

One paper revealed that blood samples were taken from healthy babies to 
set up a control group for a study. This was a painful procedure that 
the paper's authors later said wouldn't normally be sanctioned for 
research purposes. The nature of their ethical approval for the 
procedure was never cleared up.

When confronted with such issues, journal editors usually contact the 
researchers' employers or ethics committees, who may take action. But 
this is not compulsory.

The publishing committee wants to formalize this course of action in a 
code of ethical conduct for editors. It has published a draft of such a 
code alongside its report, and a final version should be ready in the 
next few months. The committee wants all editors of medical journals, 
including its 180 or so members, to sign up to the code and agree to be 
bound by the associated disciplinary procedures.

Such a code should clarify editors' duties. It should also make clear, 
if it is not already, which activities are inappropriate. The report 
describes one bid to persuade an editor to accept a manuscript, in which 
an anonymous caller offered to buy 1000 reprints of the published paper. 
"And," the caller added, "I will buy you dinner at any restaurant you 
choose."

References

   1. The Cope Report 2003, (2003). *|Article|*
      <http://www.publicationethics.org.uk/cope2003/pages2003/contents.phtml>


   2. Mojon-Azzi, S. M. /et al/. /Nature/, *421,* 209,
      doi:10.1038/421209a (2003). *|Article|*
      <http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/421209a>

   3. von Elm, E. /et al/. /J. Am. Med. Assoc/, *291,* 974 - 980, (2004).


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/