> Skip to content
FEATURED:
  • Student-Success Resource Center
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
Sign In
ADVERTISEMENT
News
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Show more sharing options
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
  • Copy Link URLCopied!
  • Print

Science Fraud at Universities Is Common -- and Commonly Ignored

By  Jeffrey Brainard
June 19, 2008

Acts of scientific fraud, such as fabricating or manipulating data, appear to be surprisingly common but are underreported to university officials, says a report published today in the journal Nature. And the institutions may have investigated them far too seldom, the report’s authors write.

The Nature report draws on the largest and most-systematic survey to date about research misconduct as defined by the federal government—namely, fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. The Office of Research Integrity, a federal agency that oversees misconduct cases, sponsored the study. It was carried out with the help of the Gallup Organization, which collected responses from 2,212 federally financed scientists about apparent misconduct that they had directly witnessed among colleagues.

We're sorry. Something went wrong.

We are unable to fully display the content of this page.

The most likely cause of this is a content blocker on your computer or network.

Please allow access to our site, and then refresh this page. You may then be asked to log in, create an account if you don't already have one, or subscribe.

If you continue to experience issues, please contact us at 202-466-1032 or help@chronicle.com

Acts of scientific fraud, such as fabricating or manipulating data, appear to be surprisingly common but are underreported to university officials, says a report published today in the journal Nature. And the institutions may have investigated them far too seldom, the report’s authors write.

The Nature report draws on the largest and most-systematic survey to date about research misconduct as defined by the federal government—namely, fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. The Office of Research Integrity, a federal agency that oversees misconduct cases, sponsored the study. It was carried out with the help of the Gallup Organization, which collected responses from 2,212 federally financed scientists about apparent misconduct that they had directly witnessed among colleagues.

Extrapolating from the survey findings, the authors offered a “conservative” estimate of 2,325 possible instances of illegal research misconduct nationally per year. Of those, only 58 percent, or roughly 1,350 incidents, were reported to institutional officials. The authors call this small percentage “alarming.”

Based on the volume of observed misconduct, the authors argue that the number investigated by universities is too low. Federal rules give institutions that receive federal grants the lead responsibility for probing allegations against their researchers, but universities and other institutions have reported an average of only 24 investigations annually to the Office of Research Integrity. The office has the power to disbar scientists from participating in federally financed studies.

“Our study calls into question the effectiveness of self-regulation,” the authors write in a peer-reviewed commentary in Nature. “We hope it will lead individuals and institutions to evaluate their commitment to research integrity.”

ADVERTISEMENT

The authors are Sandra L. Titus, an official in the research-integrity office, Lawrence J. Rhoades, the emeritus director of its education division, and James A. Wells, director of research policy at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. Mr. Wells previously worked for Gallup, where he directed the survey on research misconduct.

Their estimated incidence of misconduct is in line with those in a handful of previous studies. (The authors reported the incidence rate as at least 1.5 observed cases per 100 researchers annually.)

Questions About Methodology

But some observers criticized those previous estimates as seemingly too high and the studies’ methodologies as flawed. So the research-integrity office designed the survey and its study to respond to the criticism. For example, members of the authors’ research team evaluated whether the apparent misconduct described by the scientists surveyed appeared to meet the federal definition of research misconduct.

ADVERTISEMENT

The leader of a previous major study on the topic called the latest one “sound and rigorous.” Brian C. Martinson, a senior research investigator at HealthPartners Research Foundation, a nonprofit organization in Minneapolis, led a 2005 study, also published in Nature, that found an even broader incidence of ethically questionable research practices, not just the federally proscribed kind (The Chronicle, June 9, 2005).

At least one university official still had questions about the new study in Nature. Robert R. Rich, the medical-school dean at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said that, although he had not seen the study, the reported incident rate seemed high.

The authors cited several possible reasons for the disconnect between the number of offenses they estimated and the number of investigations by universities. For example, institutions may have determined that some of the allegations lacked merit. Other colleges may have resolved the complaints through an inquiry, a precursor to a formal investigation. Universities are not required to report the results of inquiries or how many they conduct to the Office of Research Integrity.

However, the authors say these do not “sufficiently explain the discrepancy.” They point a finger at institutions, saying that many may discourage reporting of research misconduct to avoid the resulting expense of investigation as well as the internal controversy and public embarrassment. The authors point out that the research-integrity study found that less than a third of institutional policies on misconduct explicitly obligate faculty members to report scientific misconduct. Another study found that 43 percent of whistle-blowers surveyed said their institutions pressured them to drop such allegations.

Mr. Martinson added that the study raises important questions about the ways that universities handle misconduct after an initial complaint.

ADVERTISEMENT

We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Scholarship & Research
Jeffrey Brainard
Jeffrey Brainard managed The Chronicle of Higher Education’s data and statistics unit beginning in 2008. He was responsible for the collection and analysis of data and graphics for The Chronicle’s recurring and one-time news projects, including its annual survey of compensation for college chief executives.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Accessibility Statement
    Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
    Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2023 The Chronicle of Higher Education
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin