Transcript 投影片 1 - NCHU

Scientific Misbehavior
Jiunn-Ren Roan
Fall 2006
What is scientific misbehavior?
The scientific paper is a fraud in the sense that it does give
a totally misleading narrative of the processes of thought
that go into the making of scientific discoveries.
－Sir Peter Medawar (1915-1987)
Winner of the Nobel Prize in Medicine 1960
From http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1960/
FFP Definition for misconduct given by
US Office of Science and Technology Policy
Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism
in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research
results.
• Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or
reporting them.
• Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or
processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that
the research is not accurately represented in the research
record.
• Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas,
processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of
opinion.
— http://www.ostp.gov/html/001207_3.html
Scientists behaving badly—Nature 435, 737 (2005)
From Nature 435, 737 (2005)
Some Recent Cases
Yung Park (University of Cambridge and Korea Advanced Institute of
Science and Technology) published about 80 papers in 19 journals
between 1995 and 2002.
8 papers between 1997
and 2001 are plagiarized!
2 pairs of papers with
significant overlap in
separate journals!
From Nature 427, 3 (2004)
Anders Pape Møller (Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris):
• Author of more than 450 articles and several books
• Many of his findings are incorporated into standard textbooks
• “It’s hardly possible to write a paper in behavioral ecology
without making extensive citations of Anders’s work”
—Ian Jones (Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada)
In 2001 Møller retracted a paper he published in Oikos
in 1998 after Rabøl wrote to Oikos’s editor-in-chief.
Unsatisfied with what Møller said (“the measurements
and analyses behind the data...were flawed and
misinterpreted”), Rabøl filed a formal complaint against
Møller to Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty
(DCSD).
From Science 303, 606 (2004)
Møller was unable to provide original data. DCSD’s
report: “There are very strong indications that it must,
at least in part, be fabricated” and what he said in his
retraction is “hardly credible”.
Luk Van Parijs (MIT, Caltech, Harvard):
• A rising star at MIT in the hot field of RNA interference
• “I thought Luk was an excellent scientist...”
—David Baltimore (Caltech president, Winner of Nobel Prize
in Medicine 1975)
In 2004 graduate students and postdocs in Van
Parij’s lab approached MIT administrators with
allegations of research misconduct saying “There
were data that they could not verify the origins of.
MIT began examination of the 22 papers Van
Parijs co-authored during his 5 years at MIT.
Caltech looked at 2 articles Van Parijs published,
including one co-authored by Baltimore.
Harvard scrutinize a paper by Van Parijs.
MIT fired Van Parijs.
From http://web.mit.edu/giving/spectrum/winter03/healthy-promise.html
References
1. B. C. Martinson, M. S. Anderson, and R. de Vries, Scientists behaving badly.
Nature 435, 737 (2005).
2. J. Giles, Plagiarism in Cambridge physics lab prompts calls for guidelines.
Nature 427, 3 (2004).
3. A. Abbott, Prolific ecologist vows to fight Danish misconduct verdict.
Nature 427, 381 (2004).
4. G. Vogel, F. Proffitt, and R. Stone, Ecologists roiled by misconduct case.
Science 303, 606 (2004).
5. J. Couzin, MIT terminates researcher over data fabrication.
Science 310, 758 (2005).
6. R. Dalton, Universities scramble to assess scope of falsified results.
Nature 438, 7 (2005).
7. J. Couzin and M. Schirber, Fraud upends oral cancer field, casting doubt on prevention
Trial. Science 311, 448 (2006).
8. E. Marris, Doctor admits Lancet study is fiction.
Nature 439, 248 (2006).
9. I. Fuyuno and D. Cyranoski, Doubts over biochemist’s data expose holes in Japanese
fraud laws. Nature 439, 514 (2006).
10. D. Normile, Tokyo professor asked to redo experiments.
Science 309, 1973 (2005).
11. I. Fuyuno, Further accusations rock Japanese RNA laboratory.
Nature 440, 720 (2006).
References (cont’d)
12. D. Normile, Panel discredits findings of Tokyo University team.
Science 311, 595 (2006).
13. G. Vassart, J. V. Broeck, F. Mendive, and T. V. Loy, The parable of the mandarin.
EMBO Rep. 6, 592 (2005).
14. J. Couzin and K. Unger, Cleaning up the paper trail.
Science 312, 38 (2006).
15. B. E. Barton, Six-word rule could turn description into plagiarism.
Nature 436, 24 (2005)
16. F. Grinnell, Misconduct: acceptable practices differ by field.
Nature 436, 776 (2005).
17. E. Marris, Should journals police scientific fraud?
Nature 439, 520 (2006).
18. K. Powell, Misconduct mayhem.
Nature 441, 122 (2006).
19. J. Giles, Taking on the cheats.
Nature 435, 258 (2005).