Byrgjum Brunninn?

Það  voru mikið í fréttunum á síðasta ári falsanir á vísindaniðurstöðum bæði í Kóreu og hjá frændum okkar Norðmönnum. Það sem kannski svo fæstir vita er að flest allt fals í vísindum er af öðrum toga, það er allskonar beygingar á niðurstöðum, grátt svæði í gagnaúrvinnslu, "að gleyma" upphafsmönnum hugmynda o. sv. frv.  Öfugt við það sem maður myndi kannski ætla er slíkt fals, ætti kannski frekar að kalla fúsk, líklegra algengara í greinum og ritum þar sem minni almennur áhugi er á, enda þar kannski kröfurnar lægri. Svona er þetta nú, og einn hluti af þjálfun vísindamanna er að sjá í gegnum slíkt t.d. við yfirlestur greina birtra og óbirtra og styrkumsókna. Þetta er svona dæmigert konansemkyndirofninn dæmi sem gerist í bakgrunninum en tekur mikla orku. En hvað gera háskólar þegar að upp kemst um slík mál, hér vandast málið, því yfirleitt verja háskólar sína menn m.a. af því að það lítur illa út fyrir skólann að fólk sem það hafði hafið mögulega til hæstu hæða (sbr. Kóreu og Norðmenn) hafi verið falsspámenn. Svo verður þetta erfiðara eftir því um minna fals og meira fúsk er að ræða, því hver er þá glæpurinn?

Því er mikilvægt fyrir háskóla, hérlendis sem annars staðar, að hafa prótókóla yfir hvernig taka eigi á slíkum málum. Ég hef nú ekki kynnt mér það sérstaklega fyrir íslenska skóla, en hér fylgir með hluti af grein frá Sciencemag eftir  Beryl Lieff Benderly.

http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_development/previous_issues/articles/2007_01_19/caredit_a0700008/(parent)/68 

 

The limits of trust

But scant evidence bears out that traditional optimism, according to molecular biologist Adil Shamoo of the University of Maryland Medical School in Baltimore, co-author of the textbook Responsible Conduct of Research and the founder and, for nearly 2 decades, the editor of the journal Accountability in Research. "Science in part is self-correcting and in part is not self-correcting," he told Next Wave by telephone. "I differ from scientists [who] think it's all self-correcting, period." Because researchers generally prefer pursuing their own work to redoing others', relatively few studies are ever replicated. Despite a theoretical risk of exposure, therefore, an unknown number of careers have advanced through deceptive or distorted work, he believes. "Any good sociologist will tell you for every [case] that becomes a scandal, there's probably ... 10 to 20" others that go undetected.

Still, "the overwhelming majority of people want to do the right thing," Shamoo says. Truly "pathological" deceivers form only a tiny fraction of scientists. Another 5% to 10% of work, however, falls into an intermediate "gray zone" of lesser dishonesty, he believes. Authors take "small liberties" such as drawing conclusions "that go beyond the data," "chopping off outliers," or using references in biased ways, says George Lundberg, editor of Medscape General Medicine. "Soft plagiarism"--failing to credit ideas to their true originators--is another common "gray zone" abuse, adds Shamoo. "It is up to editors and reviewers to recognize [when scientists] stretch the truth a bit," Lundberg notes.

But before a deceptive paper ever gets into an editor's hands, a number of scientists have worked to develop its ideas and data. If that process had any shady elements, some of those people--most likely including the junior researchers who do much of the bench work--know about it. "I hear at least two dozen heart-wrenching stories [a year], where [the] adviser might steal [a subordinate's] work or fudge the data, and [the subordinates] feel very uncomfortable," Shamoo said.

If an early-career scientist witnesses such a violation, what should he or she do? Taking the situation to higher university authorities can be both risky and ineffective. "Institutions tend to circle the wagons," Lundberg says. "If they have a star who might be blemished somewhat by the disclosure of hanky-panky, institutions tend ... [to] protect their star." In one case he cited, a revelation of plagiarism "resulted in the immediate loss of the job by the person who had plagiarized." But in another, similar case that same year, "the institution didn't do anything. ... The author of the first instance was a relatively small player [who] didn't bring in a lot of money. The other was a large player with a lot of political clout ... who brought in lots of money."

"To me, there is a conflict of interest" when universities police such violations, "especially if the guy brings in $5 million a year," Shamoo agrees. "Universities unfortunately have not dealt with this issue in the past 15 or 20 years in a forthright manner."