Scientific Fraud: Driven by the Culture of a Discipline?

Monday, October 17th, 2011
Scientific Fraud: Driven by the Culture of a Discipline?

All kinds of research need an ethical approach. From the big questions, such as deciding if embryonic stem cells should be used, to the simple integrity that is expected in data collection and analysis - ethics are omnipresent. These are the things I initially wanted to write about when I thought about research ethics. But as I researched the topic, I noticed something unexpected: when I scanned the internet for cases of scientific fraud, the majority seemed to be in the field of biology. Was this my personal bias or was it a fact?

This got me thinking. I decided to instead write about the different kinds of scientific fraud across the disciplines. My analysis is based on the only research paper I could find that provided quantitative data for various types of frauds across different disciplines: a 1993 American Scientist study titled Ethical Problems in Academic Research, by Judith Swazey and her colleagues. The authors conducted a survey of the prevalence of different types of scientific malpractices observed across 99 of the largest graduate departments in chemistry, civil engineering, microbiology and sociology.

Swazey and her team surveyed 2,000 doctoral students and their respective professors about their observations of different types of fraud they had witnessed among students and faculty. I compiled parts of their data obtained from information given by faculty: the percentage of faculty who acknowledged the prevalence of a particular type of fraud amongst their colleagues (other faculty). Based on this I ranked percentages for departments in each misconduct from 1 to 4. In cases where two departments had equal percentages, I gave both equal ranks. In the table below, the actual percentages from the paper are presented, with ranks that I gave in parenthesis.

Sl.
No.
Type of misconduct Chemistry
Civil engineering
Microbiology Sociology
1. Falsification or cooking data 4 (3) 10 (1) 8 (2) 4 (3)
2. Plagiarism 5 (4) 18 (1) 6 (3) 7 (2)
3. Inappropriate assignment of authorship 23 (4) 44 (1) 28 (3) 33 (2)
4. Overlooking of flawed data or interpreting data in questionable fashion 18 (4) 20 (3) 24 (2) 27 (1)
5. Use of university resources for outside consulting or inappropriate purposes 38 (3) 61 (1) 32 (4) 42 (2)
6. Overlooking data contradictory to one's own previous research 18 (1) 15 (3) 17 (2) 12 (4)
7. Misuse of research funds 20 (2) 35 (1) 20 (2) 16 (3)
8. Unauthorized use of privileged information in connection with their own research 11 (3) 12 (2) 14 (1) 4 (4)
9. Failure to disclose commercial involvement relating to one's own research 5 (3) 12 (1) 8 (2) 2 (4)
10. Sexual harassment 20 (2) 16 (3) 15 (4) 40 (1)
11. Discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity or gender 21 (3) 28 (2) 19 (4) 32 (1)
12. Use of position to exploit/ manipulate others 45 (4) 53 (2) 47 (3) 57 (1)

Swazey and her colleagues' results indicate that the prevalence of fraud in a department depends strongly on the nature of fraud. Based on this, I looked for possible correlations between the prevalent form of misconduct and the nature of the discipline. From the table, it is obvious that civil engineering leads the other disciplines by a significant margin in instances of plagiarism, inappropriate assignment of authorship, use of university resources for outside consulting, misuse of research funds and failure to disclose commercial involvement relating to one's own research. Sociology is the fourth ranked in both cases of unauthorised use of privileged information in connection with research and failure to disclose commercial involvement relating to one's own research. However, it leads all other disciplines in the three forms of interpersonal misconduct: sexual harassment; distinction based on race, gender, ethnicity; and using power and position to exploit others. Microbiology is consistently ranked second, closely tailing the first, in misconduct related to data falsification, analysis and interpretation.

I believe that each of these trends portray some aspect of the nature of the discipline itself. For example, since civil engineering is an old discipline, it stands to reason that its structure is more hierarchical. This could lead to junior scientists trying to please their seniors by offering them authorship on their papers (although this does not explain away high cases of plagiarism). Since this discipline also has more immediate applications in the real world and strong ties with its industrial counterparts, it has more scope for misconduct resulting from commercial involvement.

Sociology on the other hand, is a discipline where very little commercial involvement seems to be required (though it is finding a lot of use in marketing these days). So it is reasonable to expect it to have the least number of cases of misconduct due to such involvement. But it is indeed surprising to see it having the maximum number of cases related to interpersonal misconduct. Surely the sexual harassment cases cannot be explained by the fact that sociology has a healthy gender ratio, since microbiology too has a similar one. Can this be attributed to the fact that people in this department are more aware of and sensitive to issues related to interpersonal dealings, thus leading to more such cases being reported? That needs to be looked into.

Traditionally, microbiology has been an observational science in which a majority of the results are qualitative and not quantitative. This creates scope for the subjective interpretation of results, and therefore, scope for misconduct related to the same. A majority of biologists also lack proper training in mathematical sciences (though this trend is fast changing). This could also lead to a lack of rigour in data analysis.

Different scientific disciplines come with their own distinctive cultures, norms, values and thinking patterns. They vary in the nature of questions that are asked and the level at which they are answered. While some fields may demand observational skills, others might require more abstract thinking. In general, though we all need certain skills to be well-equipped to address scientific questions, some skills are more valued in one discipline than in another.

I believe that there is a strong positive conditioning for a particular type of thinking and working style in any discipline, which may be correlated with the type of misconduct commonly observed in that discipline. This article however, is quite basic and its results need to be checked for statistical significance. My interpretation of these results is also very subjective. But I do think there is need for more such studies investigating the correlation between the nature of a discipline and the common form of misconduct in that discipline. Any remedial measures to curb scientific misconduct should also pay attention to the background of the discipline and take appropriate steps to improve the training of researchers.

(Edited by Aathira Perinchery)

Comments

I don't think we can

I don't think we can generalize the findings from a survey in US universities only. The variation in the findings are not just the result of the nature of the discipline but due to many different factors including variation in departments. According to the article, in highly competitive departments—those in which students have to compete for departmental resources as well as faculty time and attention—graduate students are significantly more likely to observe research and other types of misconduct by their peers and faculty. And this competitive department may vary across universities, not to speak about states and countries. The two most significant disciplinary differences in questionable research practices are in the use of university resources for outside consulting or other personal purposes and in the inappropriate assignment of authorship. In your article you you attributed the hierarchical structure of civil engineering leading to false authorship by junior scientists trying to please their seniors. However, the orginal article says that although inappropriate assignment of authorship to research papers by faculty was reported most frequently by faculty in civil engineering, but students reported the greatest exposure in microbiology. What does that mean? It's hard to pin point that one on any one reason. Also do you know for sure that such a heirarchical nature in this discipline exists in civil engineering in US universities and not in biology? Also the article clearly reports that disciplinary differences in overlooking others' use of flawed data or questionable interpretations of data are largely insignificant so we can't really say that Biology students don't know math and that's why they don't interpret data better. This is defintely an interesting thought and area of study and it may be a good idea for you to explore it further and discover corelations. One way you could do it is by surveying reports of frauds in a particular year and see variations by disciplines. Then compare such data across countries, years etc. to see if there is actual variation or is it just co-incidental. Don't just go by one survey in one country. Good luck!

Dear Anna, You are very

Dear Anna, You are very right in pointing out the flaws. It just so happened that I found the topic interesting i.e. the link between the subject of a department and the fraud reported in that department and decided to write on it. However, when I actually browsed through the net I could find very little scientific study on it. Thus, I had to write only using very little data and loads of extrapolations which could very well be colored by my personal prejudices. Thanks for the comment!!

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

Bookmark and Share