Time for a scientific code of ethics

New meta-survey raises serious concerns about scientific misconduct

Hwang Woo-Suk’s fake stem cell lines cost him his job and his reputation

In the light of recent high-profile scandals – one researcher has asked: Just how common is scientific misconduct? And her conclusions are worrying.

Daniele Fanelli of the University of Edinburgh conducted the first meta-analysis of surveys questioning scientists about their misbehaviours. The results suggest that altering or making up data is more frequent than previously estimated and might be particularly high in medical research.

There have been previous estimates based on indirect data (for example, official retractions of scientific papers or random data audits) which have produced largely discrepant results. Many researchers have asked scientists directly, with surveys conducted in different countries and disciplines. However, they have used different methods and asked different questions, so their results also appeared inconclusive.

To make these surveys comparable, the meta-analysis – published in the open-access journal PLoS ONE - focused on behaviours that actually distort scientific knowledge and extracted the frequency of scientists who recalled having committed a particular behaviour at least once, or who knew a colleague who did.

On average, across the surveys, around 2% of scientists admitted they had "fabricated", "falsified" or "altered" data to "improve the outcome" at least once, and up to 34% admitted to other questionable research practices including "failing to present data that contradict one's own previous research" and "dropping observations or data points from analyses based on a gut feeling that they were inaccurate."

In surveys that asked about the behaviour of colleagues, 14% knew someone who had fabricated, falsified or altered data, and up to 72% knew someone who had committed other questionable research practices. Misconduct was reported most frequently by medical and pharmacological researchers. This suggests that either the latter are more open and honest in their answers, or that frauds and bias are more frequent in their fields.

Recent scandals like Hwang Woo-Suk's fake stem-cell lines or Jon Sudbø's falsified cancer trials have demonstrated that fraudulent research can be published, even in the most prestigious journals. There are scientists who believe that the few high profile cases that have received wider attention are the “tip of an iceberg”. Former president of the European Science Foundation has stated: “I personally believe it is beyond the anecdotal level.”

However, he is quick to point out that high-level fabrication and falsification of results is certainly not the norm. “There is pretty much more widespread misconduct on a low level which is not criminal but cutting corners, and which is done under pressure,” he said.

So what should be done? Is it time for a binding code of conduct? Well, calls to adopt such ethical codes have been increasing in recent years. US bioethicist Nancy L Jones has stated that: “Medical practice and human subject research is influenced by the Hippocratic tradition but no similar code of ethics has been formalised for the life and biomedical sciences. Like the Hippocratic oath, a code of ethics for the life sciences can provide a continual standard to shape the ethical practice of science.”