The Costs and Underappreciated Consequences of Research Misconduct: A Case Study

Fallout from scientific misconduct can be pervasive. From the broadest perspective, the public, current and future patients, funding agencies, and even the course of research may be adversely affected by scientific misconduct. At the local level. members of the perpetrator’s laboratory, colleagues, trainees, and the financial resources and reputation of the home institution may become tainted. The costs associated with these acts are substantial. This article will present a model we have developed to estimate the monetary costs of scientific misconduct. Estimates are based on a case that occurred at our institution, the Roswell Park Cancer Institute, which is a National Cancer Institute–designated Comprehensive Cancer Center located in the United States. Our experiences will likely not be wholly representative of other institutions, but we feel could be instructional and should serve as a guide in the calculation of costs at other institutions. Scientific misconduct is defined by the US Office of Research Integrity (ORI) as ‘‘fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research or in reporting research results’’ [1]. The misconduct must be ‘‘committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly, and there must be a significant departure from accepted practices’’ [1]. Scientific misconduct likely dates back to the earliest days of scientific inquiry. Fanelli [2] conducted a meta-analysis of published surveys that asked scientists whether they or a colleague had ever committed scientific misconduct. Approximately 2% of respondents admitted to have committed scientific misconduct and 14% reported knowledge of such behavior by their colleagues [2]. The deleterious effects of these transgressions on the scientific knowledge base cannot be overstated. A poignant example is related by Shafer in his review of Scott Reuben’s fraudulent research, which comprised 21 articles and abstracts spanning 15 years [3]. These articles focused on the long-term beneficial effects of perioperative nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug administration. As Shafer so eloquently stated, this misinformation ‘‘is deeply woven into many review articles, meta-analyses, lectures summaries, and the memories ...’’ of individuals exposed to this information. The obvious questions are: can we re-educate everyone who has been swayed, consciously or unconsciously, by fraudulent research and, if so, how?