How much cheating and corruption is there in science? The best answer is that nobody knows! Even today in 2014, there continue to be much-publicized instances where some professional research scientist is revealed to have published research results in peer-reviewed journal articles where the reported experimental data were either fabricated (faked) or were grossly changed (i.e., to construct a surprising pseudo-result) [e.g., 1,2]. While money is almost always involved in some way, for corruption in science money only rarely goes directly into the pocket of the dishonest scientists, unlike the usual situation for widespread corruption within politics and the business world. Instead, it often goes into their professional purse and is used for such personally rewarding expenses as the purchase of additional research equipment not paid for by their grants, salaries for additional research coworkers, extra business travel, a new computer with special software, etc.).
Dishonesty in science includes several different types of unethical activity. At a simple level, this corruption can involve such disgraceful events as (1) adding some imagined numbers to a chart of experimental results, so as to get better statistics, (2) changing or removing some numbers in a chart of collected results, so as to shift the conclusions being supported by these data, (3) misrepresenting the design of experiments, so as to support certain conclusions or deny others, or (4) not giving appropriate credit to internal or external collaborators and coauthors. Thus, these simpler types of dishonesty involve research fraud by data fabrication and manipulation, drawing false conclusions, theft of intellectual property, etc. At a more complex level, dishonesty in science can involve such activities as (1) stealing experimental research data from other labs, (2) stealing ideas or even research projects from other scientists, (3) fabrication of entire experimental datasets, or (4) constructing an application for a research grant using imaginary results or falsified statements. These larger types of dishonesty thus involve theft of data, lying about the experimental results gathered, stealing of ideas, misrepresentation with the intent to deceive, etc. Some or even many readers will wonder how in the world could any of these examples actually happen? I assure them that I have heard rumors, seen and listened to stories, and, read reports about all of these! Moreover, I have conversed with two separate doctoral workers who unsuccessfully pursued lawsuits for their claims of data theft.
I personally believe that almost all faculty scientists are completely honest. Any unethical behavior by professional scientists betrays the enormous trust given to them by the general public , and the necessary trust given by their fellow researchers. Any dishonesty thus destroys both the integrity of science and the practical ability of other researchers to proceed forward from what they believe is the truth when designing new research experiments. When dishonesty occurs in successfully acquiring a research grant, that event directly decreases the chance that some other scientist who is totally honest is able to acquire funding for their worthy project; this type of robbery is not often recognized as being a very important part of modern corruption in science. A shocking and disgraceful example of successful cheating in order to get a large research grant award was uncovered very recently .
In addition to outright dishonesty and deception by scientists, where research integrity is discarded, there also is a gray area where some very limited portion of collected data (e.g., a very few outliers in a data plot) is eliminated from the total pool of experimental results displayed. The opposite condition for this same kind of situation also occurs, where one or two pieces of individual data that are much better, clearer, or prettier than the average case, are selected to be shown in publications and in oral presentations. These practices are not at all unusual and are known generically as “fudging the data”; both can simply serve to make the quality of the collected data look better and be seen more easily. They commonly are not considered to be dishonest.
What happens when outright dishonesty by a faculty scientist is either proven or admitted? In many cases, there has been almost no penalty given beyond having a published article withdrawn or being discharged from a laboratory group. Part of this apparent lack of serious concern is due to the fact that in cases where some very celebrated scientist has been accused of being involved in corruption, long battles and countercharges in the courts have ensued [e.g., 4,5]. If famous research leaders are directing some very large laboratory in which the cheating allegedly occured, it usually is totally difficult to prove either that they were involved in the dishonest act(s) carried out by some individual lab worker, or that the leader even knew about the wrongful event(s) [4,5]; separation of the supervisor from actual technical workers is very widespread within giant laboratory groups (research factories), where the chief scientist really is only an administrative manager and does not even know the names of all the people who work there.
Most corruption in science almost certainly remains undetected. Unless there is some witness who is upset enough and courageous enough to report the dishonesty, and unless hard and fast documentation can be acquired, the loss of research integrity will never become known or proven. A good example of this is given by the very recent case cited earlier , where the dishonesty was discovered only when some other research laboratories found that they could not duplicate some of the experimental results published by the unethical scientist. Despite new rules intended to protect whistleblowers and the recently increasing appointment of officials in charge of research integrity at academic institutions, it continues to remain very difficult to investigate and prosecute alleged dishonesty in science. There is a natural reluctance for anyone working in academia, whether faculty or students or lab technicians, to make accusations that necessarily will involve official investigations, prolonged legal activities, and possible retribution.
Clearly, the present measures being taken to prevent, detect, and punish dishonesty in scientific research are inadequate. There is too much lip service in dealing with cheating and corruption in science, and it seems likely that this problem will increase. I suspect that the amount of dishonesty in applications for research grants particularly is increasing now, and soon will become the most frequent form of corruption in science. The chief driver for my prediction is that it is very, very hard to detect, and nearly impossible to prove, any dishonesty in grant applications; moreover, there presently is only scanty attention and little concern being given to this problem by the different granting agencies.
Although all academic sicentists are quite aware of the problem of dishonesty and corruption in science, there generally are few casual or formal discussions about this issue. Exactly why do some few scientists become dishonest? What motivates cheating and dishonesty in science? How can dishonesty and corruption in scientific research be decreased and eliminated? What new penalties should be instituted for cheating in research? Can an unethical researcher be made honest by some curative process? I will discuss these complex questions and related issues within future postings.
 Mail Online, 2014. Rogue scientist faked AIDS research funded with $19M in taxpayer funded money by spiking rabbit blood. Daily Mail (U.K.), 26 December 2013. Available online at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2529541/Rogue-scientist-FAKED-federally-funded-AIDS-research-spiking-rabbit-blood.html .
 Callaway, E., 2011. Report finds massive fraud at Dutch universities. Nature, 479:15. Also available on the internet at:: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111101/full/479015a.html .
 Pew Research, 2009. Public praises science; Scientists fault public, media; Scientific achievements less prominent than a decade ago. Available online at: http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/public-praises-science-scientists-fault-public-media/ .
 Wright, P., 2003. Robert Alan Good. The Lancet, 362:1161. Also available on the internet at: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2803%2914489-3/fulltext .
 Bombardieri, M., & Cook, G., 2005. More doubts raised on fired MIT professor. In: The Boston Globe, October 29, 2005. Available online at: https://secure.pqarchiver.com/boston/doc/404985132.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Oct+29%2C+2005&author=Marcella+Bombardieri+and+Gareth+Cook%2C+Globe+Staff&pub=Boston+Globe&edition=&startpage=&desc=MORE+DOUBTS+RAISED+ON+FIRED+MIT+PROFESSOR .
GO BACK TO HOME PAGE OR SCROLL UP TO MENU
UNDER THE WEBSITE TITLE