Research Misconduct
Youtube link to lecture
You can download the video lecture here
Research Misconduct – Module 10
Famous Research Misconduct Cases for Discussion
Case 1
In 2011, a Dutch psychologist named Diederik Stapel committed academic fraud in a number of publications over the course of ten years, spanning three different universities: the University of Groningen, the University of Amsterdam, and Tilburg University. Among the dozens of studies in question, most notably, he falsified data on a study which analyzed racial stereotyping and the effects of advertisements on personal identity. The journal Science published the study, which claimed that one particular race stereotyped and discriminated against another particular race in a chaotic, messy environment, versus an organized, structured one. Stapel produced another study that claimed that the average person determined employment applicants to be more competent if they had a male voice. As a result, both studies were found to be contaminated with false, manipulated data. Psychologists discovered Stapel’s falsified work and reported that his work did not stand up to scrutiny. Moreover, they concluded that Stapel took advantage of a loose system, under which researchers were able to work in almost total secrecy and very lightly maneuver data to reach their conclusions with little fear of being contested. A host of newspapers published Stapel’s research all over the world. He even oversaw and administered over a dozen doctoral theses; all of which have been rendered invalid, thereby compromising the integrity of former students’ degrees. “I have failed as a scientist and a researcher. I feel ashamed for it and have great regret,” lamented Stapel to the New York Times.
Case 2
In 2010, Dr. Anil Potti left Duke University after allegations of research fraud surfaced. The fraud came in waves. First, Dr. Potti flagrantly lied about being a Rhodes Scholar to attain hundreds of thousands of dollars in grant money from the American Cancer Society. Then, Dr. Potti was caught outright falsifying data in his research, after he discovered one of his theories for personalized cancer treatment was disproven. This theory was intended to justify clinical trials for over a hundred patients. Because it was disproven, the trials could no longer take place. Dr. Potti falsified data in order to continue with these trials and attain further funding. Over a dozen papers that he published were retracted from various medical journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine. Dr. Potti had been working on personalized cancer treatment he hailed as “the holy grail of cancer.” There are a lot of people whose bodies fail to respond to more traditional cancer treatments. Personalized treatments, however, offer hope because patients are exposed to treatments that are tailored to their own unique body constitution, and the type of tumors they have. Because of this, patients flocked to Duke to register for trials for these drugs. They were even told there was an 80% chance that they would find the right drug for them. The patients who partook in these trials filed a lawsuit against Duke, alleging that the institution performed ill-performed chemotherapy on participants. Patients were so excited that there was renewed hope for their cancer treatment, that they trusted Dr. Potti’s trials and drugs. Sadly, many of these cancer patients suffered from unusual side effects like blood clots and damaged joints. Duke settled these lawsuits with the families of the patients.
Case 3
Bengü Sezen was finally caught falsifying data after ten years of continuously committing fraud. Her fraudulent activity was so blatant that she even made-up fake people and organizations to support her research results. Sezen was found guilty of committing over 20 acts of research misconduct, with about 10 research papers recalled for redaction due to plagiarism and outright fabrication. Sezen’s doctoral thesis was fabricated entirely to produce her desired results. Additionally, her misconduct greatly affected the careers of other young scientists who worked with her. These scientists dedicated a large portion of their graduate careers trying to reproduce Sezen’s desired results. Columbia University moved to retract her Ph.D in chemistry. Sezen fled the country during her investigation.
Please let your reflections/questions/comments related to the cases for discussion in the box bellow.
3 thoughts on “Module 10”
case1
its very clear there is falsification through manipulate of data.
now days there are many case of falsification, absent of ethic principles among such people, it will start from school exams fared.
based on my experience there are many falsification in reporting research results, some teachers they only false, manipulated data and research of their students, practically in such university there are not publishing the best student research. and others they guide you to right research for him self with no authorship or acknowledgement.
case2
there is oblivious Fabrication in making up data and results for achieving research fund, in fact there are several cases regarding this issue money made a few researchers’ to forget about ethics.
case 3
fake people and organizations, and misconduct of 10 research papers that is too much, the questions it raising here where the role of ethic committee in journal review.
in this regard, there are some people selling exams for students, and others selling degrees notably certificates.
finally, much appreciated all of you for your proper effort and effective contribution in conducting this important training, and more than anything else in selecting cases and scenarios, which made us specifically me to make sense of ethics principles in doing research from planning to dissertation results.
thank you very much for everything, and also many thank for SNAC committee for their effort in organizing this special academic event, I hope they could organize other in data collection, analysis and academic writing approaches.
with my regards
Saad Mohamed Abdal karem Abakar, Research scholar – Department of Anthropology
Case 1 Staple false results came out eventually and this clarify value of scrutiny and critical appraisal for research outcomes. However, sadly the harm disseminated to other scholars who built their thesis over it.
Case 2 Falsification of credentials and data not only misled the scientific community but also impact patients treatment outcome
Case 3 Sezen’s fraudulent activities not only compromised the integrity of her own work but the career of young researcher who misled by her
All cases showcase the importance of having a committee that is directly involved in monitoring scientific research and passing their accuracy before they could be submitted for publication. my question is does this kind of monitoring fall under the scope of REC duties? isn’t this kind of misconduct only found out after such studies were approved ethically? and how can such misconduct be missed for such a long time?