arram Cammants” EUGENE GARFIELD INSTITUTE FOR SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION 3501 MARKET ST,, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19104 What Do We Know About and Other Fom of Intellectual Dkhonesty in ? Part 2. Why Does Fraud Happen aad What Are Its Effeets?

Number 15 April 13,1987

In part one of this essay on misconduct York, gave an interpretation of deviant be- in science, we discussed various definitions havior in science in terms of the race for that have been given of scientific fraud and priority. He observed that “competition in the disparate estimates of its frequency. I In the reahn of science, intensified by the great this essay we focus on speculations concer- emphasis on original and significant discov- ningthe causes of fraudulent behavior, the eries, may occasionally generate incentives implications of fraud for the scientific com- for eclipsing rivals by illicit or dubious munity, and the actions being diseussed— means. ”4 This idea derived from the theory or already taken-to derd with it. of anomie, a term referring both to societal instability resulting from a breakdown in values and to individual or personal uncer- The Roots of Fraud tainty and rdienation. Anomie theory was first promulgated by I%le Durkheim The causes of fraud area matter of debate (1858- 1917)s and developed by Merton in among scientists. In the vacuum created by 1938 and later.6,T a lack of rigorous studies, the late Philip According to Merton’s theories, aberrant Handler, former president of the National behavior (such as fraud on the part of scien- Academy of , expressed the belief tists) results when accepted avenues of at- that fraud was due to individual aberrations. taining societally prescribed goals are un- As reported by Patricia Woolf, Princeton available or perceived to be unavailable. University, New Jersey, Handler said that Building on Merton’s work, sociologist “one can only judge the rare acts [of fraud] Jerry Gaston, Texas A&M University, Col- that have come to light as psychopathic be- lege Station, claims that failure to reach a havior originating in minds that made very goal according to the “rules of the game” bad judgments,... minds which.. may be may cause a scientist “to adopt a different considered deranged.”2 This is an apperd- mode of operation to get an edge or advan- ing argument since, as Daniel E. Koshland, tage over.. competitors.”8 And in areprise editor, Science, points out in an editorial, of his anomie work, Merton said, “If there “there is little percentage in falsifying sci- is a lesson to be learned from some of the ence .... An oversimplified admonition might consequences of a belief in the absolute im- be, ‘You may escape detection by falsiQ- portance of originality in science, it is that ing an insignificant finding, but there will absolute beliefs have their dangers too. They be no reward. You may falsi~ an impor- can give rise to the kind of zeal in which tant finding, but then it will surely form the anything goes.”9 I plan to discuss anomie basis for subsequent experiments and be- in the future. come exposed.’ ‘‘3 Gthers offer explanations that blame mis- In 1957 Robert K. Merton, Department conduct more on “the system” than on in- of , Columbia University, New dividuals. For instance, Robert G. Martin,

93 National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive Robert Petersdorf, vice-chancellor for health and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of sciences, University of California, San Health (NIH), Bethesda, Maryland, writes Diego (UCSD), as saying that science has in a letter to the editors of Science that jour- beeome “too big, too competitive, too en- nal editorial policies and “the insidious rise trepreneurial, too bent on ‘winning,’ ... in publication costs” may contribute to cre- [thus] eroding the moral fiber” of some sci- ating a hospitable environment for fraud. 10 entists, who resort to cheating to keep up Martin says that some journals accept marns- with what they perceive as the pace of their scripts that are admittedly incomplete if the colleagues’ accomplishments. 12 results are considered” scientifically excit- A case in point is that of William Sum- ing. ” He also contends that authors faced merhn, who, in 1973, at the Sloan-Kettering with the necessity of adding more data and Institute in New York, claimed to have controls (to satisfy reviewers) in less space solved the problem of transplant rejection (to satisfy editors) may “opt for cutting the by culturing tissue to be grafted for pro- text and assuring the editor that the request- longed periods before actually performing ed controls have been performed .... But the the procedure. 13 His “proof,” however, data are not shown. The reviewer is then consisted of white mice whose dark-colored presented with the unenviable task of accept- skin grafts had resulted from Summerlin’s ing the revised manuscript or imputing the felt-tip pen, rather than from transplants integrity of the author.”10 from unrelated black mice, as he had The competitiveness of science is regard- claimed. Summerlin, notes T.J. Hamblin, ed by many as a significant contributor to Royal Victoria Hospital, Boumemouth, UK, scientific misconduct. Merton observes that “was under enormous pressure at the time, “the culture of science has long put a pre- with a heavy clinicrd load, 25 proj- mium on originality, on being the first to ects, and a boss who demanded more pub- make a scientific discovery. Being second, lications and bigger breakthroughs. ” I’$In- let alone a subsequent nth, hardly counts at deed, “several of the recent cases of fraud, ” all. Moreover, scientists know that much the according to wience journalist Nicholas same discovery is often made independent- Wade, “have occurred in laboratories with ly by two or more investigators at about the a heavy emphasis on paper production .... some time.... This often brings about a rush It is scarcely surprising that in such an en- for priority. So it is that the culture of vironment, younger researchers should be science and its reward system combine with tempted to shade their results, to tidy up the the fact of multiple discoveries to produce data so as to give the chief what he wants, intense competition among scientists.... That and eventually to invent data out of whole same premium on originality which has re- cloth .... Fraud may well be a sign of the inforced intrinsic motives for advancing the stresses in the eontempxary scientific enter- frontiers of scientific knowledge also con- prise. ”ls tains pathogenic components.”9 Along with But Eugene Braunwald, professor of the many others, Lawrence Altman, medical theory and practice of medicine, Harvard correspondent, Science ‘News Department, Medical School and Brigham and Women’s New York Times, and Laurie Melcher, re- Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, doesn’t ac- search associate, Cornell Medical College, cept the idea that competition turns good ap- New York, have observed that long lists of ples into bad. “In awarding promotions and publications are often critical in securing for grants, undue weight is sometimes given to scientists grants, promotions, and tenured the quantity, as opposed to the quality, of positions, so there is an emphasis on get- a scientist’s contributions, ” he writes. ‘‘This ting results and publishing them quickly. 11 unfortunate practice may lower the quality Some think that this atmosphere contrib- of science, but I do not believe it is the root utes to the temptation to stoop to fraud. Sci- cause of fraud .... It is usually not possible ence journalist Stephen Budiansky quotes to explain the dee~r motivation for the com-

94 mission of serious scientific fraud within the Sociologist Deena Weinstein, DePaul framework of normal behavior. ” 16 University, Chicago, Illinois, also feels that As suggested by anomie theory, at least fraud may shake society’s faith in science, some acts of scientific dishonesty seem to and she says one result might be that ftmd- be committed in order to acquire or main- ing agencies will be less forthcoming in the tain a certain level of recognition or prestige. future. But she sdsothinks that fraud has pro- Merton said that “the pressure to demon- found effects on the : strate the truth of a theory or to produce a “If scientists must be concerned about the sensational discovery has occasionally led validity of the conclusions upon which their to the faking of scientific evidence.’ ‘q own research rests, they may need to repli- Other deceits, however, seem to have been cate prior work (a great inefficiency) or... pxpetrated out of the sheer conviction that live with an endemic doubt and anxiety.’ ‘Zo the conclusion is right and the facts must be Moreover, she warns, “knowledge that made to fit it. Charles Dawson’s discovery others have committed fraud and that some of the human skull and apelike jawbone of have ‘gotten away with it’ may lead to.. the a “dawn man” at Piltdown Common near feeling that one does not know what... is Sussex, UK, 17in 1912 is one such exam- right.’ ‘Zo ple. was exposed as a Yet science does progress, in spite of er- in the 1950s, when modern archaeological ror and and misconduct and inefficien- techniques showed conclusively that the cy. Thus it would seem that, even if some “fossil” had been stained and its molars unknown number of papers are unreliable, crudely filed to give the appearance of age. science as a whole continues to function. In But for a time, England had a claim to be- an incident such as the one involving John ing the cradle of civilization that matched R. Darsee,zl who fabricated data at Har- those of France and Germany, where Palm- vard, at Emory University, Atlanta, Geor- lithic cave art and ancient human remains gia, and as an undergraduate, individuals had been discovered at the turn of the cen- may have been hurt, and time, money, and tury. 18 (p. 119-22) Another, more recent equipment may have been wasted. Yet the example of a fraud committed to preserve very fact that Darsee’s duplicity was discov- an idea is that of psychologist Sir ered is another instance of science as self- (1883-1971), who fabricated research on the correcting. As Benjamin Le.win, editor, IQs of schoolchildren to supprt his theories Cell, notes in a comment similar to Kosh- of the heritability of intelligence. 19 land’s, “if the [fraudulent] data are impor- tant, another laboratory will in any case re- peat them, and any discrepancies will he evident.’ ’22 The Consequences of Fraud But whatever the actwi incidence and imp- Itseems likely to many people that each act of serious fraud in contempxary sci- instance of fraud that comes to light is, at ence, it seems fair to ask why the known the very least, damaging to the public cred- cases progressed so far: why did the safe- ibility of science. For decades, Altman and guards in which Handler placed such faith Melcher claim, “scientists have insisted that fail? Braunwald notes that although “scien- science was honest and virtually fraud- tific fraud is a crime and must be investi- proof. ,~II me basis for this belief. accord- gated like any other crime.. scientists are not ing to Wcdf, has been the twin safeguards trained to be criminal investigators and few of refereeing and .z “Now,” are good at it. ” 16And in my recent essays Altman and Melcher continue, “those past on refereeing and the peer-review pro- denials have created the impression that RSS,23-26I noted how rare it is for referees fraud is a major new problem, even if the of scientific articles to noti~ editors that a percentage of cases is really no larger than given paper arouses their suspicion, and I the true hidden proportion in the past. ” 11 listed some of the conjectured reasons for 95 this.zs.zd Scientists may well be aware of ute to allowing fraud to seemingiy slip problems with a colleague’s work, but, for through science’s safety net. a variety of reasona, they seldom voice their In fact, they report that severaf scientists doubts in print or in public. Harriet Zucker- tried ad failed to replicate the work of Cor- man,zT Department of Sociology, Colum- nell graduate student Mark Spector, who bia University, gave a classic example of this promtdgated a now-suspect theory explain- in comection with the Surnsnerlin affair, ing the origins of cancer;~.s I however, quoting the remarks of Nobelist Peter B. none “took their failures seriously enough Medawar: to make them public.”~ And Bernard Dix- on, European editor of The Scientistm, 1foundmyselflackinginrrmrslcourage. Sum- merlirr once demonstrated to our assembled writes of similar behind-the-scenes skepti- board a rahbhwhichhe saidhad resxivedfrom cism in comection with Michael Briggs, a human being.. .a corned gratl .... Through Deakitr University, Geelong, Atrstralia, who a perfectly transparent eye this rabbit looked fabricated data on the relationship between at the board with a candid and unwavering cardiovasctdar disease and the use of con- gaze of which only a rabbh with an absolute- traceptive pills by women. Experts had ken ly clear conscience is capable. I could not believe that this rabbit had received a grati questioning his work for years-but’ ‘in the of any kind.. because the pattern of blood conference corridors,... not in public or in vessels in the ring around the cornea was in print, ” according to Dixon. 32 no way disturtmi. Nevertheless, I simply Another, more recent factor for this si- lacked the moral courage to say at the time lence and for the lack of research on fraud that I thought we were the victims of a hoax or .zs may be scientists’ fear of lawsuits. In at least one instance, the study by Walter W. Stew- Part of the reason for this reticence may art and Ned Feder, NIH, of the research lie in a remark reported in Chemical & En- practices of the 47 coauthors of Darsee,z 1 gineering News by writer Jeffrey L. Fox and the threat of lawsuits was sufllcient to sig- attributed to a Cornell scientist who wished nificantly delay the publication of the orig- to remain anonymous. The source told Fox inal manuscript. According to an article by that scientists ‘‘can’t live... without attrib- Stewart and Ftxier in the Boston Suna2ry uting honesty to coworkers. You can be Globe, their paper was praised by review- skeptical, but you can’t @oOk]at everything ers and editors alike, yet went unpublished as being made up.’ ’29Lewin voices a sim- for three years amid formal threats of libel ilar opinion “The presumption of innocence suits .33The study was finaUy published in holds powerftd sway in the world of science. Nafure early this year after extensive revi- When a paper is reviewed, the assumption sion.21 The issue also contains a rebuttal of is implicit that the work is described ac- the Stewart-Feder charges by Braunwald, curately, that the authors actually did what who was one of Darsee’s coauthors and the they say they did, and that the data present- head of the Cardiac Research Laboratory, ed are representative. What other way ex- Harvard, at the time Darsee’s were ists to consider a manuscript without tear- discovered. 115/m anonymous editorial ac- ing a hole of suspicion in the fabric of sci- companying the article and Braunwald’s ence? Yet this leaves us immensely vulner- commentary explains the editors’ interest in able to any sort of deceit ....’ ’22 Science the Stewart-Feder study and their role in put- journalist Wifliam J. Broad and Wade claim ting it into print. It cautions that, although that’ ‘simple human factors that often shape the study is “not itself above reproach,” it scientists’ attitudes and motivations [may nevertheless raises “important questions push] out of mind the basic methodologicrd about the reliability of the safeguard of replication .... Pride, ambition, and the role of the process of publication in excitement at a new them-y, reluctance to the practice of science.’ ’34 listen to bad news, unwillingness to distrust But this still leaves the matter of the re- a colleague’ ’30are all factors that contrib- prodttcibil@ of results. Supposedly, if in-

96 ferior or even fraudulent work makes it past In fact, we found evidence to suggest that the refereeing process, scientists who read Dan’s statement is much too strongly word- it will immediately spot any errors when ed. We read 19 of the 20 papers that cited they try to reproduce the paper’s results. a 1981 work in the New England Journal However, in a letter to the editors of Sci- of Medicine (NEYM) by Darsee and Steven ence, Arthur H. Neufeld, Eye Research In- B. Heymsfield, both at Emory University stitute of Retina Foundation, Boston, Mas- at the time. 37An Emory University inves- sachusetts, charges that “‘reproducing the tigatory ccanrnittee found’ ‘no evidence that experiments of other investigators is no any of the work described in thk paper is longer of primary concern” to today’s busy, valid” and that, in fact, “the entire paper competitive scientists.gs may be fictitious. ~$38The authors Of 15 of Neufeld claims that this is a big change the 19 papers cited the NEJM work as back- from the practice of’ ‘several decades ago, ” ground or to put their own findings in per- when he says reproducing results was com- spective. The authors of the other four mon and the “methods section of a journal papers described the NEJM work as unsup- article was important. ” Now, though, the ported, said it was in contrast with previous “exponential growth in new and interesting work in the field, or stated they could not paths to follow has outpaced the growth in confirm it. This analysis provides little direct the number of scientists and in the funding evidence of harm or damage done to these for research. Who has the time, interest, investigators. Unless fraudulent data from money, or need to reproduce another scien- previous papers are incorporated as the basis tist’s results?’ ’35Neufeld argues that “the for subsequent work, it is difficult indeed implications of not reproducing results are to assess whether any damage has been done severe. Much of what is published goes un- to the work of honest investigators. challenged, may be untrue, and probably no- Forged research may have tangible effects body knows,,.. The foundation on which we beyond the scientific community. As the based our research was other scientists’ Briggs affair shows, fraudulent papers may methods and results. Now the foundation is have serious health implications for swiety ~m~t ~>MWhile this may lx a valid obser- at large. A small sampling of articlessg42 vation, considering the progress made in suggests that the public may be exposed to some fields, we have every reason to believe products that have been “inadequately that our trust has not been misplaced. tested,” according to art anonymous, former Fraud may adversely affect the work of US Environmentrd Protection Agency of- individual scientists, who may have built a ficial quoted in the Los Angeles Tbnes.a body of literature on the basis of fraudulent And as suggested by many, including Daryl work. In the case of Spector, for instance, E. Chubin, former director, and senior scientists and coauthors at Cornell are Program, School of Social working intensively to sift the wheat from Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, the chaff and establish what can be con- Atlanta, and now at the OffIce of Technol- firmed of Spector’s elegant theory.zg And ogy Assessment, Washington, DC, “the in comection with the Darsee affair, Bruce misconduct of a few scientists threatens to B. Dan, senior editor, 14MA-7he &zwnal discredit the profession in the eyes of the of the Amen”can Medical Association, re- public, if the public believes that miscon- ports that the list of papers citing Darsee”s duct in research has been discovered and has work takes up “more than 29 feet of com- then been ignored.’ ’43 puter printout from the SciSearch@ The public perception of science and sci- database. ” Dan states that “the ultimate entific misconduct through the eyes of the validity of these 241 papers ...is now open media has been a matter of some concern to question. ● *36However, neither he nor to scientists, who fear that the publicity re- anyone else that we know of has attempted cent cases of fraud have attracted give sci- to determine the validity of this assertion. ence an umecessary “black eye. ” There 97 seems to be a general feeling that the press or government involvement in their is blowing the subject of misconduct in sci- work. ~.AT Many scholarly organizations ence out of proportion. Yet such opinions and institutions have issued guidelines for don’t take into account the and func- the ethical conduct and reporting of re- tion of the media. As Merton has observed: search.As-SqThe NIH recently issued such guidelines concerning work funded by [Societyhas] the strong moral expamtion that grants and awards made by agencies in the scientistsin pursuit of reliable knowledgewifl live up to the highest standards of probity. US Public Health Service;s4 and according WhenIhoseexpectationsare seento havebear to William F. Raub, deputy director, NIH, violated in a few cases, these statistically rare the NIH now requires that “institutions reports attract great public noticeand become [that] get grants and contracts must have a especiallynewsworthy. We all stitl remember misconduct policy in place.’ ’55 the observation, made half-a-century ago by UCSD, one of the institutions victimized John Bogart, then the city editor of 77re[New York] Sun: ‘When a dog bites a man, that’s by the case involving Robert Shttsky, has not news. But if a man bites a dog, fhuI’s instituted a tough-minded approach to the news!‘ And Bogart might have added: even problem of finding out exactly what hap- more startting and therefore more likely to pened. In the wake of the discovery that make headlines would be the episode where Slutsky, a junior scientist at the UCSD med- not orstydoes man bite dog, but dog doesn’t ical school. had published false data, an ad even bite back, as would be the case were the scientific community to take the fabrication hoc investigative committee found at least of &ta as a mere quirk or misdemeanorrather 68 papers of “questionable validity ’’-artd than virturdlya capitafcrirne.a has put “all coauthors on notice that they Moreover, it may be that the way jour- would have to defend their papers.’ ’56And nalists report on fraud “further idealizes the NIH, which funded both Slutsky and science as a pure, dispassionate profession, ” Darsee, barred Darsee from receiving fed- according to Dorothy Nelkin, Cornell Uni- eral funds for 10yeara and required Brigham versity, Ithaca, New York.As She suggests and Women’s Hospital to repay the that journalists either describe individual acts $122,371 they received in contract funds of fraud and the investigations that revealed from the NIH.57 them or discuss the causes and extent of Most of the authors who committed the fraud. The first style treats fraud as a‘ ‘scan- highly publicized acts of fraud over the last dal” or a “sin against science, ” while the few years are no longer practicing research- second paints fraud as a problem endemic ers. But according to Lewin, many cases of to today’s highly competitive scientific professional misconduct are handled privat- enterprise; yet both styles, Nelkin says, elyand are kept between the perpetrators and “project a coherent image of scientific their immediate superiors.zz What happens ideafs.... Fraudulent acts in other fields ... to these authors, who have admitted to com- [are] reported, often cynically,.. .as one mitting fraud or have been caught doing so, more example of corruption.’ ’45 and who continue to publish? “To refisse to consider further work from [such scientists] is to establish a kangarcm court on the basis lkaling with Fraud of the word of one senior scientist. Yet to Even if Nelkin is correct and the darnage consider [their] papers like any others is to science’s credibility is less than scientists perhaps naive.’ “22 fear, it seems reasonable to assume that this Whether or not new instances of fraud may change if there is a rerd or perceived surface, scientists must always examine the increase in the instances of scientific fraud work and data of colleagues with a healthy over the next few years. Scientists may then skepticism. Clearly, the government and the face a choice between developing proce- public have a right to expect that scientists dures for detecting or preventing fraud or will continue to cultivate an ethical atmo- accepting an increased level of institutional sphere that will encourage young scientists

98 to uphold the tradition of trust that has sociological inquiry into the exact causes and worked so well. However, a heightened incidence of fraud. I believe that such an in- awareness on the part of scientists that 8ci- quiry would demonstrate that scientists have entific fraud does indeed occur and a will- a great deal to be proud of, in spite of occa- ingness to voice reasonable suspicions dur- sional instances of akmnt behavior. Never- ing the refereeing process will help reduce theless, caution should be exercised; as the number of instances. Stewart and Feder warn near the end of their But to me, the more important issue is a paper: perverse and pervasive anti-science attitude among some members of the press on mat- Examination of scientific practices mufd cause ters scientific, not just on fraud in science. unwarranted harm to individual scientists, Among other notions they promulgate is the Systematic examinationof scientific practices idea that scientists are the new generation might even weaken the fabric of trust that is of fat cats. In relation to fraud, isn’t it ordy essential to the functioning of xience. Of all hutnan endeavors, science is one of the most “natural,” they ask, to expect scientists, like successful-prodigious in ktefits, low in so many other groups in socie~, to be dis- cost. But science, vulnerable to from honest? In my opinion, it is not a coinci- within by its practitioners, is perhaps even dence that scientists, many of whom may more vulnerable to harm by regulation, and have been atmacted to their profession by at some point, the cost of further regulation will outweigh the benefits. Scientists have, to a desire to help humani~, should also be less an unususf degree, been entmsted with the inclined to be criminals-and to be less sus- regulationof their own professionatactivities. ceptible to fraud in its various forms. Self-regulation is a privilege that must be ex- As we have seen, fraud is variously esti- ercised vigorously and wisely, or it may be mated to be anything from a minor phenom- lost.2I enon hardly worthy of discussion to a ma- jor threat to the integrity and conduct of science; it has been blamed on everything ***** from the failings of individuals to the fail- ings of modem science (and, indeed, of modem society) itself. But ironically, what My thanks to Stephen A. Borraduce and is missing from all these speculations on C.J. Fiscus for their help in the preparation misconduct in science is science—that is, a of this essay. ., w, ,s1

REFERENCES

1. Garfield E. Whatdo we know abnut fraud and other forms of intellcctuat dkhonesey in science?Part 1, The speetrum of deviant bekavior in scienee, Currenr Contents (14):3-7, 6 April 1987. 2. Wooff P. Fraud in science: how much, how serious? Hastings Center Repon 11(5):9- 14, 1981, 3. Koshlood D E. Fraud in science. Science 235(4785):141, 1987. 4. Merton R K. priorities in scientific discovery. Amer. Sociof. Rev. 22:635-59, 1957. (Reprinted in: Merton R K. The soctotigy oj science. Chicago, IL: University of ChicaSo Press, 1973. p, 286-324.) 5, Durkhehn K. Suicide.’ a stud> bt sociology. New York: Free Press, 1951, 405 p, 6. Merton R K. Social structure and anomie. ,irner. SocioL Rev. 3:672-82, 1938. (Reprinted in: Merton R K. $ocia[ theory and social structure, New York Free Press, 1%8. p. 18.5-214.) 7. ---— ----- Continuities in the theory of sociai structure and anomie. Social theory and social structure. New York: Frti Press, 1968. p. 215-48. 8. Gaston J. Original~ty and cornpetitiari in science. Chicago, IL: Universny of Chicago Press, 1973. p. 72. 9, Merton R K. Scientific fraud and the tight to be fust, 7irnes fit. hppl. 2 November1984,p. 1265, 10. Martbs R G. Letter to editor. (Quality of biomedkal Iitemture.) Science 235(47S5): 144, 1987, 11. Attsnan L & MeleherL. Freud in science. Brir. Med. J, 286:2003-6, 1983, 12. Budkansky S. New ways of shrutiig truth. Nature 315:447, 1985, 13. IUxsan J. lhs patchwork rrrouse. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press, 1976. 22S p. 14, Hranbfkn T J. Fake! Brh. Med. J, 283:1671-4, 1981. 15. Wade N. Madness in their method, New Republic 188(25): 13-7, 1983.

99 16. Brmrnwsdd E. On anafysing scientific fraud. Mrosre 325(6101):2 15-6, 1987. 17. Weiner J S. Jle Pibdown . London: Oxford University Press, 1955.214 p, 18. Brsmd W & Wade N. Betrayers of the truth, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1982.256 p. 19. Hawk6 N. Tracin8 Burt’s descent to scientific fraud. .Science 205:673-5, 1979. 20. Weirrate”hrD. Scientific fraud and scientific . Corns. Med. 45:655-8, 1981. 21. Stewart W W & Feder N. The integrity of the scientific literature. Nature 325(6101):207-14, 1987. 22. Lewin B. Fraud in science: tfrc burden of prouf. Cell 48(l): 1-2, 1987. 23, Garffeld E. Refereeing arrd peer review. Par-t 1. O@rion and conjecture on the effectiveness of refereeing. Current Conrents (31):3-11, 4 AugusI 1986. 24. ------Refereeing and peer review. Part 2. The reacarch on referecirrg and aftsmatives to the present system. Current Conterm (32):3-12, 11 August 1986. 25, ------Refereeing and peer review. Pat-i 3. How the peer review of research-grant proposals works, and what scientists say about it. Currenr Contents (4):3-8, 26 Jarruary 1987, 26. ------Refereeing and peer review. Part 4. Research on the peer review of grarrt propnsals and suggestions for improvement. Current Contents (5) :3-9, 2 February 1987. 27. Zuckermmn H. Deviant behavior and social control in science. (Sa8arin E, cd.) Deviance and social change. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1977. p. 87-138. 28. Medawar P B. The strange case of the spotted mice. Review of “The patchwork muuae” by J. Hixson. NY Rev. Books 23(6):6-11, 1976. 29. Fox J L. Thcory explaining cancer partfy retracted. C/tern. Eng, News 59(36):35-6, 1981, 30. Bruad W J & Wade N. Science’s faulty fraud detectors. Psycho/. Today I@l 1):51-7, 1982. 31. Wade N. The rise and fall of a scientific superstar. New Sci. 91:781-2, 1981. 32. Dixon B. When it smells, hold your nose. Ihe Scientist 17 November 1986. p. 12-3. 33. Stewart W W & Feder N. Why rcaearcb fraud thrives, Boston SUrrdoy Glo6e 30 November 1986. p. A21; A24. 34. Fraud, lihcl and the literature. Nature 325(6101): 181-2, 1987, 35. Neufeld A H. Later to editor. (Reproducing results.) Sci@nce 23411, 1986. 36. Dmr B B. The paper chase. JAMA-J. Arm Med. Assn. 249:2872-3, 1983. 37. Daraee J R & Heynraffeld S B. Decreased myucardial taurine levels rmd hypertaurimrria in a kindred with mitral-valve prolapac and congestive cardiomyopathy, N. Engl, J. Med. 304:129-35, 1981, 38, Moran N C. Repmi of ad hoc committee to evaluate research of Dr. Jofm R, Darsec at Emo~ University. Minerw 23:276-305, 1985. 39, Kahn E J. A stamp of disapproval for these “medical” mafpractitioners. Today’s Health 52(3):20-3; 67, 1974. 40. Rempel W C & Taylor R B. Public being imperiled by fraudulent lab testa. Los Angeles i%nes 6 June 1983. Sec. I, p. 1; 6. 41. Tataryn L. Blinded by science: recent revelations about scientific fraud are disturbing news for consumers. Can, Cmr.cmner 15(5):9-13, 1985, 42. Randolph E. EPA seeks new tests on 35 psticide chemicals. LQS Angeles llmes 12 July 1983. Sec. I, p. 1; 8. 43, Chubin D E. Misconduct in research: an issue of science policy and practice. hfirrervo 23:175-202, 1985, 44. Mer-ton R K. Some devianr frehovior panern.r of scierrtisrs. Unpublished speech pressrrted to the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 26 May 1981. 45. Nelkht D. Srlling science: how the press covers science and technology. New York: W. H. Freeman. (In press.) 46. Gu@rr M L. The life sciences and the public: is science tnu impurtant to bc left to the scientists? Po/it. LifeSci. 3:28-40, 1984. 47. Who, not Congress, should police fraud? Narure 290:433-4, 1981. 48. Srrn M. NIH developing policy on misconduct. Science 216:711-2, 1982. 49. Bruad W J, Yale amounces plarr to handle charges of fraud. Science 218:37, 1982. 50. DfcfewwrD. Harvard guidelines for avoiding fraud. Nature 295:271, 1982. 51. ACS guidelines for publishing research propuscd. Chem. Eng, News 61(39):39-43, 1983. 52. Association of American Universities. Report of/he A.mociarion of American Universities Committee on rhe Integrity of Research. Aprif 1980.6 p. (Unpubfislred repurt.) 53, Ad Hoc Comrrrfttee on the Mahaterrance of Hfgh EtfrfcalStandards in the Conduct of Rew+arch. The maintenance of high ethical standards in the conduct of research. tin. Res. 30429-32, 1982. 54. Natiursal Institutes of H~th. Spxial issue—pulicies and pruoxfures for deafing with pussibie misconduct in science. (Whole is sue.) NIH guide for grants and corrtrom. 15(1 1), 1986. 37 p. 55, Powkdge T M. NIH’s Raub on misconduct, 7?w Scierrri.rr15 Ikembcr 1986. p. 18-9. 56. Mssrahafl E. San Diego’s tough stand on research fraud, Science 234:534-5, 1986. 57. Broad W J. U, S. to penaliie heart researcher on fraudulent project at Harvard. New York i’imes 16 February 1983. p, AI; A23.

100 cum- somments” EUGENE GARFIELD INSTITUTE FOR SCIENTIFIC lNFORMATION@ 3501 MARKET ST,, PHILADELPHIA, PA 191C4

Some Deviant Behavior in Science Has Nothing At AU to Do with Fraud

4 Number 49 December 7, 1987 In my recent two-part essay on fraud and pointI was trying to make was that’ ‘diver- intellectual dishonesty in science, 1.2I tried gent classitlcations of the misbehavior of to demonstrate that the amount of outright scientists contribute to diftlculty in arriving fraud in the scientific community is, by com- at a consensus definition of fraud in indi- parison with other professions, minuscule. vidual cases. Works that contain some ir- I tried to remind readers that the borderline regularities but have not actually been fabr- between outright fraud, disreputable error, icated can cause heated debate, with some or other kinds of unwitting errors is often scholars arguing that fraud has been com- thin. That is why I used the neutral phrase mitted, while others argue against such a “deviant behavior” in the title of Part 1. In conclusion.” 1(p. 4) The documentation for the broad spectrum of the latter, there are the discussion of this case of alleged disrep many kinds of misconduct and behavior, in- utable error was provided in my essay and cluding those that bypass accepted norms. does not warrant repetition. Nevertheless, For example, pork barreling by academics a few readers felt that the researchers in- may not be illegal, but many scholars regard volved had been badly treated in my re~rt. it as unethical. It is certainly not traditional They are free to publish their concerns. But since it attempts to bypass peer review. I believe that we made a balanced and fair A kind of behavior that some might de- journalistic report on the debate coneeming scribe alternatively as charisma or chutzpah methodological irregularities, even though is that which has certain scientists seeking such irregularities were unintentional. publicity in ways perceived to violate the In extending my review of the spectrum norm. In some national science cukures, as of deviant behavior, I also referred to the in the UK, it is considered gauche even to work and style of Stanley Pmsiner, Urtiver- talk about one’s accomplishments to the pub- sity of California, San Francisco (UCSF). lic. An eminent British scientist once wrote Having read an extensive article by G. me that it is his policy never to comment Taubes in Discover7 magazine that includ- on his own work. This was in response to ed numerous photographs of Dr. Prusiner an invitation to write a commentary on one @resumably taken for the accompanying ar- of his many classic papers. ticle), I had the impression of a man who On the other hand there are the “visible had mastered the art of public relations. scientists’ ‘—like Carl Sagan, among oth- However, I received a letter from Profes- ers4—who gain a certain kind of publicity sor T.O. Diener, Microbiology and Plant by being continuously public figures. The Pathology Laboratory, US Department of publication of James D. Watson’s Doubfe Agriculture, Beksville, Maryland, in which Helix5 aroused discomfort among many in he described the Discover article as “an at- the scientific community.6 tempt at character assassination of Dr. In my attempt to illustrate one of the many Prusiner. ” Diener wrote that “even the types of’ ‘deviant behavior, ” in the socio- most superficial inquiry into the facts would logical sense, I referred first to a case of al- have disclosed that the Discover article was leged disreputable, or careless, error, The far from objective and could best be de- 370 scribed as pseudoscientific soap opera. ” As readers of Currenr Contentsm through- Diener then dismsses “only one of the many out the world realize, we have always been factual misrepresentations contained in the meticulous in documenting our sources of article. ” Diener concludes with the request information. We do thk to protect cited in- that I publish, “in the name of intellectual dividuals from inadvertent misrepresentation honesty, a correction of the slur you perpe- or, more often, to avoid scientific errors. trated against a most productive and imagi- I have always avoided personal attacks and native scientist.”8 wiUof course never tolerate yellow journrd- I may have inadvertently associated ism in the pages of Currenl CorUerUsor THE Prusiner’s somewhat unconventional style SCIENTIST”. If the juxtaposition of my and conduct with fraud. That, of course, was comments about Prusiner in an essay cov- never said or intended, I am certairdy un- ering a variety of deviant behaviors has qualified to judge the validity of Pmsiner’s caused him or anyone else undeserved public priori theory. Although it is still controver- scorn, then I regret the failure to adequately sial, it may be one of those scientific con- clari~ the intent of the discussion (see the troversies that inexorably leads to greater selected Bibliography at the end of this essay knowledge. That Pmsiner’s lab was award- for works discussing norms, mores, and ed a $4 million Jacob Javits Center of Ex- ethics in science), cellence in Neuroscience research grant in Upon rereading my comments about 1985 confirms the belief of qualified experts Prusiner, I found that I had not explicitly that his scientific ideas have great potential. cited either those investigators mentioned in And the citation record supports the impres- the Discover article who, at one time or sion that his papers have had considerable another, were reported to have made critical impact. But the merits of Pmsiner’s research remarks about Prusiner or his work, or the have nothing to do with the issue of the thrust of their criticisms. Those who sim- methods used to obtain publicity for his lab. ply disagree with his scientific conclusions However, Diener and another correspon- need no mention here, but those who ques- dent, Ivan Diamond, School of Medicine, tion hk approach to public relations include UCSF, and director, Ernest Gallo Clinic and Paul E. Bendheim, formerly a postdoc with Research Center, San Francisco, feel that Prusiner at UCSF, now at the Institute for I have tainted Prnsiner with guilt by associ- Basic Research in Developmental Disabili- ation—that the mere mention of his name in ties (IBR), Staten Island, New York, and an article about fraud and other forms of Dave C. Bolton, another former Pmsiner misbehavior in science was inappropriate. g colleague, also now at IBR.7 In addition, It is unfommate that the timing was such that George G. Glenner, a research professor of I was unaware of the letter published in the pathology, University of California, San February 1987 issue of Discover by Charles Diego, and a Pmsiner coauthor, 11 strenu- Weissmann, Institute of Molecular Biology, ously disagrees with the conclusions ex- University of Zurich, Switzerland, who also pressed to the press by Pmsiner. 12 interprets the Taubes article as an attempt If he wasn’t a public figure before re- to denigrate Prusiner. Weissmann expresses ceiving his $4 mi~lon grant, Dr. Prusiner his conviction of Prusiner’s intellectual is now. While it may be my prerogative as honesty. He notes, however, that Prnsiner a journalist to criticize his PR style, it is es- “has an extraordinary and colorful person- sential to reiterate that he was never accused ality” and that his’ ‘enthusiasm” has’ ‘also of fraud. I encountered the article in Dis- led him to espouse views prematurely. ” cover just as my own article was in its last While agreeing that Dr. Prusiner’s coining revision and inadvertently failed to send Dr. the term priori “unleashed much ill feeling Prminer a copy of my remarks. He has been in the scrapie community, ” Weissmamr asks sent a copy of these remarks, however, as “on whom does that reflect badly-Stan or well as my sincerest regrets for the his critics?” 10 confusion.

371 . ..

REFERENCES

1. Garffeld E. What do we know about fraud and orber forms of intellccermldishonesty in science? Part 1. The spectrum of deviant behavior in science. Current Gmtents (14):3-7, 6 April 1987. 2. —----- What do we know about fraud and other forms of intellectual dishonesty in science? PaII 2. Why does fraud happen and what are ita effects? Current Cootems (15>3-10, 13 April 1987. 3. Westgate B. ‘Pork bard’ means more labs, jobs. THE SCIEN7TST 12 January 1987. p. 1; 7. 4. Goedell R. Zhe visible sciendsts. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1977.242 p. 5. WafaorI J D. lhe &uble hzliz: a personal accoant of the alscovery of the structure of DNA. New York: Atheneum, 1968.226 p. 6. ——. i%e double helix: a personal account of the discovery of the structure of DNA. (Stent G S, cd.) New York: Norton, 1980.298 p. 7, Taubea G. The game of the name is fame. SW is it science? Discover 7(12):28-52, 1986. 8. Dfener T O. Personal communication. 27 April 1987. 9. Dfanmttd L PecamraJcommunication. 4 May 1987. 10. Weiaattmrm C. Letter to editor. (Prusiner and prions.) Discover 8(2):102, 1987. 11. Pcoainer S B, McKfrdey M P, Bowman K A, Bolton D C, Berrdheiro P E, Groth D F & Giermer G G. Scrapie prions aggregate to form amyloid-lie birefringem rnda. Cell 35:349-58, 1983. 12. Freelich W. Authocs of Alzlreiier’s study dii8ree on data. San Diego Union 7 December 1983. p. Al; A3.

SeIeeted Blbkgraphy on the Speetrum of Deviant Behavior in Science

Barnes S B & Oolby R G A. Tbe scientific ethos: a deviant viewpoint. Arch. Eur. .$ociol, 11:3-25, 1970. Ben-Yehuda N. Deviance and mod boundaries: wilchcrajl, Ihe occult, science jicdon, deviont sciences omi scientists. Chicago, IL: Urdvecaityof Chicago Press, 1987.260 p. ——. Deviance in science towards the criminology of science. Brit, J. CrbrrinoL 261-27, 1986. Dolby R G A. Reflections on dcviarrt science. srrciof. Rev. Monogr. M27:9-47, 1979. Hacgena L L. Anomie urrd Disamrs in Wisaenacbaftlichen Gemeinachaften (Anomie and dissens.s in scientific communities). Z. SoZ. .%zpsychol. (Supp. 18):375-92, 1975. Ladd J. Are science and ethics compatible? (CrdMran D & Engelhardt H T, da.) i%e roars of ethics: science, , and dues. New York: Plenum Press, 1981. p. 373-402. LQngfrtoH E. Scientific and the logics of science. /nquiry-Interdiscipl. J. Philos, 26:85-106, 1983. Mahoney M J. Psychology of the scientis~ an evaluative review. Sac. Stud. Sri. 9:349-75, 1979. Mertort R K. Priorities in scientific discovery. Arnsr. Sociol. Rev, 22:635-59, 1957. (Reprinted in: Merron R K, 7%esociology of science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1973. p, 286-324.) Medkay M. Science and the . London: Allen & Unwin, 1979. 132 p. Nelkirr D. scientists and professional responsibility: the experience of American ecologists. .%. Stred.Sci. 7:75-95, 1977. ————. Sslling science: how the press covers science and technology. New York: Freeman, 1987.224 p. Rothmaa R A. A dissenting view on the scientific ethos. lint. J. Sociol. 23:102-8, 1972. Storer N W. Z?resocial system of science. New York: HoIt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966. 180 p, Torert N. Th%scientific ethns debate: a meta.themetical view. SOC.Sci. Med. 17:1665-72, 1983, Watson D L. Scientists are human. New York: Amo Press, 1975, 249 p. Wan&rUcb R. The aciendtic ethos: a clarification. l?n”t,J. SocioL 25:373-7, 1974. WymrreB. Between orthodoxy and oblivion-normaliition nf deviance in science. Sociol. Rev. Morrogr. M27:67-84, 1979. Zuckenaarr H. Deviant behavior and social control in science. (Sagarin E, cd.) Deviunre and social change. Eeverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1977. p. 87-138.

372