Kelsey Piper
vox.com
Originally posted 23 Aug 24
Here is an excerpt:
The question of whether research fraud should be a crime
In some cases, research misconduct may be hard to distinguish from carelessness.
If a researcher fails to apply the appropriate statistical correction for multiple hypothesis testing, they will probably get some spurious results. In some cases, researchers are heavily incentivized to be careless in these ways by an academic culture that puts non-null results above all else (that is, rewarding researchers for finding an effect even if it is not a methodologically sound one, while being unwilling to publish sound research if it finds no effect).
But I’d argue it’s a bad idea to prosecute such behavior. It would produce a serious chilling effect on research, and likely make the scientific process slower and more legalistic — which also results in more deaths that could be avoided if science moved more freely.
So the conversation about whether to criminalize research fraud tends to focus on the most clear-cut cases: intentional falsification of data. Elisabeth Bik, a scientific researcher who studies fraud, made a name for herself by demonstrating that photographs of test results in many medical journals were clearly altered. That’s not the kind of thing that can be an innocent mistake, so it represents something of a baseline for how often manipulated data is published.
While technically some scientific fraud could fall under existing statutes that prohibit lying on, say, a grant application, in practice scientific fraud is more or less never prosecuted. Poldermans eventually lost his job in 2011, but most of his papers weren’t even retracted, and he faced no further consequences.
Here are some thoughts:
The case of Don Poldermans, a cardiologist who falsified data, resulting in thousands of deaths, highlights the severe consequences of scientific misconduct. This instance demonstrates how fraudulent research can have devastating effects on patients' lives. The fact that Poldermans' data was found to be fake, yet his research was still widely accepted and implemented, raises serious concerns about the accountability and oversight within the scientific community.
The current consequences for scientific fraud are often inadequate, allowing perpetrators to go unpunished or face minimal penalties. This lack of accountability creates an environment where misconduct can thrive, putting lives at risk. In Poldermans' case, he lost his job but faced no further consequences, despite the severity of his actions.
Prosecution or external oversight could provide the necessary accountability and shift incentives to address misconduct. However, prosecution is a blunt tool and may not be the best solution. Independent scientific review boards could also be effective in addressing scientific fraud. Ultimately, building institutions within the scientific community to police misconduct has had limited success, suggesting a need for external institutions to play a role.
The need for accountability and consequences for scientific fraud cannot be overstated. It is essential to prevent harm and ensure the integrity of research. By implementing measures to address misconduct, we can protect patients and maintain trust in the scientific community. The Poldermans case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of addressing scientific fraud and ensuring accountability.
