Psychologist’s paper retracted after Dutch national body affirms misconduct findings

Adam Marcus

Retraction Watch

Originally posted 23 Nov 20

A cognitive psychologist in Germany has lost one of two papers slated for retraction after her former institution found her guilty of misconduct. 

In a 2019 report, Leiden University found that Lorenza Colzato, now of TU Dresden, had failed to obtain ethics ethics approval for some of her studies, manipulated her data and fabricated results in grant applications. Although the institution did not identify Colzato by name, Retraction Watch confirmed her identity. 

The Leiden report — the conclusions of which were affirmed by the Netherlands Board on Research Integrity last month — called for the retraction of two papers by Colzato and her co-authors, three of whom acted as whistleblowers in the case. As the trio told us in an interview last December: 

We worked with the accused for many years, during which we observed and felt forced to get involved in several bad research practices. These practices would range from small to large violations. Since early on we were aware that this was not OK or normal, and so we tried to stand up to this person early on.

However, we very quickly learned that complaining could only lead to nasty situations such as long and prolonged criticism at a professional and personal level. … But seeing this behavior recurring and steadily escalating, and seeing other people in the situations we had been in, led us to feel like we could no longer stay silent. We had become more independent (despite still working in the same department), and felt like we had to ‘break’ that system. About one year ago, we brought the issues to the attention of the scientific Director of our Institute, who took our story seriously from the beginning. Upon evaluating the evidence, together we decided the Director would file a complaint. Out of fear for retaliation, we initially did not join as formal complainants but eventually gathered the courage to join the complaint and disclose our role.

The now-retracted paper, which Colzato wrote with Laura Steenbergen — a former colleague at Leiden and one of the eventual whistleblowers — was titled “Overweight and cognitive performance: High body mass index is associated with impairment in reactive control during task switching.” It appeared in 2017 in Frontiers in Nutrition. 

The info is here.

On the Willingness to Report and the Consequences of Reporting Research Misconduct: The Role of Power Relations.

Horbach, S.P.J.M., et al.
Sci Eng Ethics (2020).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00202-8

Abstract

While attention to research integrity has been growing over the past decades, the processes of signalling and denouncing cases of research misconduct remain largely unstudied. In this article, we develop a theoretically and empirically informed understanding of the causes and consequences of reporting research misconduct in terms of power relations. We study the reporting process based on a multinational survey at eight European universities (N = 1126). Using qualitative data that witnesses of research misconduct or of questionable research practices provided, we aim to examine actors’ rationales for reporting and not reporting misconduct, how they report it and the perceived consequences of reporting. In particular we study how research seniority, the temporality of work appointments, and gender could impact the likelihood of cases being reported and of reporting leading to constructive organisational changes. Our findings suggest that these aspects of power relations play a role in the reporting of research misconduct. Our analysis contributes to a better understanding of research misconduct in an academic context. Specifically, we elucidate the processes that affect researchers’ ability and willingness to report research misconduct, and the likelihood of universities taking action. Based on our findings, we outline specific propositions that future research can test as well as provide recommendations for policy improvement.

From the Conclusion:

We also find that contested forms of misconduct (e.g. authorship, cherry picking of data and fabrication of data) are less likely to be reported than more clear-cut instances of misconduct (e.g. plagiarism, text recycling and falsification of data). The respondents mention that minor misbehaviour is not considered worth reporting, or express doubts about the effectiveness of reporting a case when the witnessed behaviour does not explicitly transgress norms, such as with many of the QRPs. Concern about reporting’s negative consequences, such as career opportunities or organisational reputations being harmed, is always taken into considerations.

Secondly, we have theorised the relationship between power differences and researchers’ willingness to report—in particular the role of seniority, work appointments and gender. We have derived a list of seven propositions that we believe warrant testing and refinement in future studies using a larger sample to help with further theory building about power differences and research misconduct.

The info is here.

Europe’s biggest research fund cracks down on ‘ethics dumping’

Linda Nordling
Nature.com
Originally posted July 3, 2018

Ethics dumping — doing research deemed unethical in a scientist’s home country in a foreign setting with laxer ethical rules — will be rooted out in research funded by the European Union, officials announced last week.

Applications to the EU’s €80-billion (US$93-billion) Horizon 2020 research fund will face fresh levels of scrutiny to make sure that research practices deemed unethical in Europe are not exported to other parts of the world. Wolfgang Burtscher, the European Commission’s deputy director-general for research, made the announcement at the European Parliament in Brussels on 29 June.

Burtscher said that a new code of conduct developed to curb ethics dumping will soon be applied to all EU-funded research projects. That means applicants will be referred to the code when they submit their proposals, and ethics committees will use the document when considering grant applications.

The information is here.

The $3-Million Research Breakdown

Jodi Cohen
www.propublica.org
Originally published April 26, 2018

Here is an excerpt:

In December, the university quietly paid a severe penalty for Pavuluri’s misconduct and its own lax oversight, after the National Institute of Mental Health demanded weeks earlier that the public institution — which has struggled with declining state funding — repay all $3.1 million it had received for Pavuluri’s study.

In issuing the rare rebuke, federal officials concluded that Pavuluri’s “serious and continuing noncompliance” with rules to protect human subjects violated the terms of the grant. NIMH said she had “increased risk to the study subjects” and made any outcomes scientifically meaningless, according to documents obtained by ProPublica Illinois.

Pavuluri’s research is also under investigation by two offices in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: the inspector general’s office, which examines waste, fraud and abuse in government programs, according to subpoenas obtained by ProPublica Illinois, and the Office of Research Integrity, according to university officials.

The article is here.

Stop ignoring misconduct

Donald S. Kornfeld & Sandra L. Titus
Nature
Originally posted 31 August 2016

The history of science shows that irreproducibility is not a product of our times. Some 350 years ago, the chemist Robert Boyle penned essays on “the unsuccessfulness of experiments”. He warned readers to be sceptical of reported work. “You will meet with several Observations and Experiments, which ... may upon further tryal disappoint your expectation.” He attributed the problem to a 'lack of skill in the scientist and the lack of purity of the ingredients', and what would today be referred to as inadequate statistical power.

By 1830, polymath Charles Babbage was writing in more cynical terms. In Reflections on the Decline of Science in England, he complains of “several species of impositions that have been practised in science”, namely “hoaxing, forging, trimming and cooking”.

In other words, irreproducibility is the product of two factors: faulty research practices and fraud.

The article is here.

Accountability for Research Misconduct

By Zubin Master
Health Research, Research Ethics, Science Funding
Originally posted September 23, 2014

Here is an excerpt:

This case raises important questions about the responsibilities of research institutions to promote research integrity and to prevent research misconduct. Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiments and other social psychology research have taught us that ethical behavior is not only shaped by dispositional attribution (an internal moral character), but also by many situational (environmental) features. Similarly, our understanding of the cause of research misconduct is shifting away from the idea that this is just a problem of a few “bad apples” to a broader understanding of how the immense pressure to both publish and translate research findings into products, as well as poor institutional supports influence research misconduct.

This is not to excuse misbehaviour by researchers, but rather to shed light on the fact that institutions also bear moral responsibility for research misconduct. Thus far, institutions have taken few measures to promote research integrity and prevent research misconduct. Indeed, in many high profile cases of research misconduct, they remain virtually blameless.

The entire article is here.

Scandal claims Japanese scientist's life

Coauthor of retracted stem cell research papers commits suicide, despite being cleared of research misconduct.

Aljazeera News
Originally posted August 5, 2014

A senior Japanese scientist embroiled in a stem-cell research scandal has apparently committed suicide, according to police.

Yoshiki Sasai had supervised and coauthored stem cell research papers that had to be retracted due to falsified contents.

The entire article is here.

What Doctors Don't Know about the Drugs They Prescribe

Of Medical Giants, Accolades and Feet of Clay

By LAWRENCE K. ALTMAN, M.D.
The New York Times
Published: April 1, 2013

Medicine honors its heroes in many ways. But sometimes high accolades can turn out to be highly embarrassing.

Consider the annual award for lifetime achievement in preventing and controlling sexual infections, given since 1972 by the American Sexually Transmitted Diseases Association. The prize is named for an authentic giant of medicine: Dr. Thomas Parran Jr., the nation’s sixth surgeon general (from 1936 to 1948), who used what was then a supremely powerful position to lift American public health to the front ranks.

At a time when “venereal diseases” were spoken of in whispers, Dr. Parran influenced Congress to finance rapid-treatment centers to control and prevent syphilis, gonorrhea and chancroid.

(cut)

The debate over the Parran Award throws a spotlight on the issue of changing standards in medicine. What are scientists to do when they name their most prestigious award for an icon linked years later to unethical research?

The two medical scandals revolved around experiments that are now universally regarded as shocking. Dr. Parran did not perform either study. Though national experts approved them both, he presided over them, strongly supported them and followed their progress in medical journals.

One, the Tuskegee study, observed the course of untreated syphilis among hundreds of men who were infected naturally in Alabama. The study began in 1932, and it was not halted by the United States Public Health Service until 1972, after a whistle-blower complained that infected patients in the study were not given penicillin, the standard therapy after World War II.  Some participants died of the disease, some of their sexual partners contracted it, and some children were born infected.

The entire story is here.

OSU prof falsified research results, probes find

Elton hit with work restrictions; he must seek retractions from journals

By  Ben Sutherly
The Columbus Dispatch
Originally published December 22, 2012

An Ohio State University pharmacy professor has agreed to request retractions of much of his research after university and government officials found that he falsified data in six journal articles.

As part of an agreement disclosed yesterday, Terry S. Elton said he will avoid contracting or subcontracting with any agency of the federal government for three years, or serving in any advisory capacity to the U.S. Public Health Service for three years. He will request that five of his scientific publications be retracted.

Federal and university investigations found that Elton falsified data from Western blots, a standard laboratory technique used to detect proteins. Some of Elton’s research explored the brain functions of people with Down syndrome.

The entire story is here.

Former Harvard professor Marc Hauser fabricated, manipulated data, US says

By Carolyn Y. Johnson
Boston Globe
Originally published September 5, 2012

Marc Hauser, a prolific scientist and popular psychology professor who last summer resigned from Harvard University, had fabricated data, manipulated results in multiple experiments, and described how studies were conducted in factually incorrect ways, according to the findings of a federal research oversight agency posted online Wednesday.

The report provides the greatest insight yet into the problems that triggered a three-year internal university investigation that concluded in 2010 that Hauser, a star professor and public intellectual, had committed eight instances of scientific misconduct. The document, which will be published in the Federal Register Thursday, found six cases in which Hauser engaged in research misconduct in work supported by the National Institutes of Health. One paper was retracted and two were corrected, and other problems were found in unpublished work.

Although Hauser “neither admits nor denies committing research misconduct,” he does, the report states, accept that federal authorities “found evidence of research misconduct.”

The entire story is here.

There are other stories related to Marc Hauser on this blog.

A Sharp Rise in Retractions Prompts Calls for Reform

By Carl Zimmer
The New York Times
Originally published April 16, 2012

In the fall of 2010, Dr. Ferric C. Fang made an unsettling discovery. Dr. Fang, who is editor in chief of the journal Infection and Immunity, found that one of his authors had doctored several papers.

It was a new experience for him. “Prior to that time,” he said in an interview, “Infection and Immunity had only retracted nine articles over a 40-year period.”

The journal wound up retracting six of the papers from the author, Naoki Mori of the University of the Ryukyus in Japan. And it soon became clear that Infection and Immunity was hardly the only victim of Dr. Mori’s misconduct. Since then, other scientific journals have retracted two dozen of his papers, according to the watchdog blog Retraction Watch.

The entire story is here.

Penn Clears Two Faculty Psychiatrists of Research Misconduct Charges

by Jocelyn Kaiser
Sciencemag.org
Originally published on March 2, 2012

The University of Pennsylvania has found no merit to an allegation that two of its psychiatry faculty committed research misconduct when they co-authored a 2001 paper written with help from writers hired by a drug company. But the university says that under current rules, the two faculty members would have been required to acknowledge the role of a "medical writer" in preparing the paper.   

Last July, Penn psychiatrist Jay Amsterdam alleged in a letter to the federal Office of Research Integrity that five researchers, including Penn's Laszlo Gyulai and Dwight Evans, chair of the Penn psychiatry department, had "engaged in scientific misconduct by allowing their names to be appended to a manuscript that was drafted by" Scientific Therapeutics Information (STI), a medical communications company, that had been "hired by" GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). The paper, which appeared in June 2001 in the American Journal of Psychiatry, reported on a small clinical trial of the antidepressant Paxil, partly funded by GSK and the National Institutes of Health. Amsterdam also claimed the paper was "biased" in favor of Paxil's safety and efficacy.

Amsterdam's letter argued that ORI should be involved because NIH Director Francis Collins has written that ghostwriting "may be appropriate for consideration as a case of plagiarism," which falls under the federal definition of research misconduct.

But Penn has concluded that no plagiarism occurred. In a statement yesterday, the university says that a faculty committee found "there was no plagiarism and no merit to the allegations of research misconduct" because Evans and Gyulai helped conduct the research and analyze the results and "contributed to the paper." The paper "presented the research findings accurately," Penn says.

The entire article is here.

Research misconduct in the UK: Time to Act

By Fiona Godlee, Editor in Chief, and Elizabeth Wager, Chair
British Medical Journal

Research misconduct can harm patients, distort the evidence base, misdirect research effort, waste funds, and damage public trust in science. Countries all over the developed world are now recognising the need to set up systems to deter, detect, and investigate research misconduct. Why does the United Kingdom have no plans to do the same?

As Aniket Tavare outlines in the linked feature (doi:10.1136/ bmj.d8212), high profile cases of misconduct have led the United States, Canada, Sweden, Norway, and Poland, among others, to create formal mechanisms for overseeing research integrity. In most countries responsibility lies with the institutions, but oversight varies greatly, and it is unclear which systems are most effective and efficient. None is perfect—the remit of the US Office of Research Integrity is limited to publicly funded health research; Australia’s recently established Research Integrity Committee is already being criticised for lacking teeth. But each system shows that the problem has been acknowledged, that institutions accept primary responsibility, and that governments and funders are seriously committed to tackling misconduct openly and with a range of statutory powers.

In contrast, the UK has no official national body. The UK Research Integrity Office was established in 2006 and has done some useful things. But its function has always been advisory, and now that the major funders represented by Research Councils UK (RCUK) have decided not to continue the funding, it relies on voluntary funding from institutions. The Research Integrity Futures Working Group, set up by RCUK and Universities UK (UUK) and other bodies, has also apparently come to nothing. The working group’s report commissioned in 2009 called for an independent advisory body, similar to the

UK Research Integrity Office but operating across all research sectors and with a stronger monitoring and preventive function. But RCUK pleaded budget cuts and decided not to implement the  recommendations.  It says it is working with UUK on a “concordat” to take some aspects forward, but two years on nothing has been announced.

The entire editorial can be found in the public domain.

BMJ 2012;344:d8357 doi: 10.1136/bmj.d8357