False images top form of scientific misconduct.
نویسنده
چکیده
Famous cases of research fraud typically involve fabricated or falsified data, but the most common form of laboratory misconduct today involves scientists publishing microscopic images that don’t match original data — so-called image manipulation. The practice likely accounts for more than 70% of cases handled by the United States Office of Research Integrity (ORI), according to Susan Garfinkel, director of the office’s Division of Investigative Oversight. It’s the science equivalent of a news service altering a photograph to make it more convincing, says Dr. Steve Shafer, a professor of anesthesiology at Stanford University and editor of an anesthesiology journal. Manipulated images do not necessarily affect a study’s findings but they are considered a form of misconduct. In addition to institutionally imposed sanctions, researchers who manipulate images may endure a hit to their reputations. A retraction with a finding of misconduct “basically could end one’s research career from the perspective of not being able to publish further,” says Dr. Donald Miller, a former journal editor and an anesthesiologist at The Ottawa Hospital. Yet scientists are sometimes unaware that changing an image is wrong. “It ... seems to us that many laboratories consider photographs as illustrations that can be manipulated, and not as original data,” one journal editor wrote to the Committee on Publication Ethics. Shafer has had similar experiences: “It’s virtually never the investigator trying to get away with something. Almost always, they didn’t know the rules, or a senior person didn’t know the rules.” Though neither Canada nor the United States have exact numbers, image issues have risen in recent years. Many allegations of image manipulation handled by the ORI don’t lead to findings, however, because the agency cannot prove the changes were intentional. (The ORI has a website explaining appropriate scientific image processing.) In Canada, misconduct is defined more broadly, and investigators need not prove that a scientist changed an image on purpose, only that he or she breached accepted standards. “It’s important to point out that an honest kind of breach repeated over time can have just as damaging an impact on the public record and on research,” says Susan Zimmerman, the secretariat’s director. The secretariat does not conduct investigations, leaving that to universities and research institutes. In recent years, there have been several investigations of Canadian researchers who had to correct or retract papers due to manipulated images. Image problems in papers by a research team at Toronto’s University Health Network (UHN) were the subject of an investigation reviewed in a recent court decision in Ontario. The scientists, Dr. Sylvia Asa, a cancer researcher, and her collaborator and husband, endocrinologist Dr. Shereen Ezzat, have retracted three papers and editors published a notice of concern about a fourth. UHN spokesperson Gillian Howard says that in the past six years there have been two other instances involving UHN scientists “in which images were questioned and appropriate sanctions were taken.” At McGill University in Montréal, an investigation found falsified figures in two papers by Dr. Maya Saleh, which lead to corrections. At the University of Ottawa, stem cell researcher Dr. Michael Rudnicki and coauthors retracted an article due to images that represented erroneous data. Dr. Cory Toth, former research director of the Calgary Chronic Pain Centre, retracted nine articles due to images containing manipulated data. And at the Université de Montréal, Zhiguo Wang had to retract six papers due to falsified images. Penalties for publishing faulty images vary but can be severe. McGill provided no details on disciplinary action against Saleh to Postmedia News False images top form of scientific misconduct
منابع مشابه
Scientific Misconduct: Three Forms that Directly Harm Others as the Modus Operandi of Mill's Tyranny of the Prevailing Opinion
Scientific misconduct is usually assumed to be self-serving. This paper, however, proposes to distinguish between two types of scientific misconduct: 'type one scientific misconduct' is self-serving and leads to falsely positive conclusions about one's own work, while 'type two scientific misconduct' is other-harming and leads to falsely negative conclusions about someone else's work. The focus...
متن کاملScientific Misconduct and Social Media: Role of Twitter in the Stimulus Triggered Acquisition of Pluripotency Cells Scandal
BACKGROUND The academic scandal on a study on stimulus‑triggered acquisition of pluripotency (STAP) cells in Japan in 2014 involved suspicions of scientific misconduct by the lead author of the study after the paper had been reviewed on a peer‑review website. This study investigated the discussions on STAP cells on Twitter and content of newspaper articles in an attempt to assess the role of so...
متن کاملThe study of the role of education in controlling scientific misconduct in Iran: using Grounded Theory
The study of the role of education in controlling scientific misconduct in Iran: using Grounded TheoryScientific misconduct in the most general sense is a deliberate violation of methodical and moral norms with the intention of deceiving others. Falsification, fabrication and plagiarism formally had been considered as the main examples of scientific misconduct by some researchers. In recent yea...
متن کاملPrevalence of scientific misconduct among a group of researchers in Nigeria.
BACKGROUND There is a dearth of information on the prevalence of scientific misconduct from Nigeria. OBJECTIVES This study aimed at determining the prevalence of scientific misconduct in a group of researchers in Nigeria. Factors associated with the prevalence were ascertained. METHOD A descriptive study of researchers who attended a scientific conference in 2010 was conducted using the ada...
متن کاملWhen conflict-of-interest is a factor in scientific misconduct.
Under the guidelines adopted by the United States (U.S.) Office of Research Integrity (ORI), scientific misconduct is defined by one or more of three activities: fabrication of data, falsification of results, and plagiarism or the improper appropriation of other people's ideas or written work. This paper discusses whether three other breaches in scientific ethics, namely ghost writing, fabricat...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
- CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne
دوره 188 9 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2016