[IP] scientists and ethics
-----Original Message-----
From: Bradley Malin <malin@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 18:24:39
To:dave@xxxxxxxxxx
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 roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/