Skepticism about science and medicine

In search of disinterested science

Dishonesty and dysfunction in science

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2012/12/16

The traditional (Mertonian) norms intended to describe the behavior of scientists during the 1st and 2nd ages of modern science included not only disinterestedness and organized skepticism but also “universalism” and “communalism”: scientific understanding as a freely shared public good, universal rather than local.

No more free sharing
The intrusion of politics and big money in the present-day 3rd age of modern science has effectively neutered that ideal of free sharing.

Secrecy for commercial purposes, including patenting, used to be restricted to industry and to “applied” science in general. But the distinction between pure and applied has eroded, and moreover universities — the traditional home of “pure” or “basic” research — have themselves become profit-seeking and patent-greedy. One consequence is that the sharing of information between researchers at universities has become subject to bureaucratic restrictions expressed in “Material Transfer Arrangements” (Philip Mirowski, Science-Mart: Privatizing American Science, Harvard University Press, 2011).

Individuals as well as institutions have become secretive and wary of being scooped. A notorious instance in the race to invent high-temperature superconductors had the author of a manuscript insert wrong information so that the reviewers would not be able to benefit from early  knowledge of crucial details of the work; the information was corrected only when the article had reached the proof stage of publication (Robert M. Hazen, The Breakthrough: The Race for the Superconductor, Summit Books / Simon & Schuster; 1988).

Outright fraud
Deliberate dishonesty was rare during the first and second ages of modern science. By 1980, however, instances had become sufficiently common that two science journalists could suggest that it is endemic within science: William Broad & Nicholas Wade, Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science (Simon & Schuster, 1982). Their claim to trace instances back for many centuries indicated, however, that fraud had actually been quite rare in times past, becoming disturbingly frequent only in modern times, in biomedical matters in particular (book review, 4S Review, 1 [#3, Fall 1983] 17-23).

That dishonesty has become much more common in science during the last three decades can be amply demonstrated. For instance, in 1989 the National Academies of Science (NAS) had felt it necessary to publish a booklet entitled On Being a Scientist. By 1995, the 2nd edition added a sub-title to emphasize ethical behavior: On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research, and this was downloaded 850 times from the NAS Press website. Since the 3rd edition of 2009 there have been 40,000 downloads.

Also in the 1980s the National Institutes of Health found it necessary to establish an Office of Research Integrity (ORI; its name has changed several times over the years). ORI newsletters  all too often have to report penalties enacted on individuals who have been found dishonest in grant applications or in other ways. Nowadays it is also required that universities receiving NIH grants must provide courses in research ethics for their faculty and students; and many universities have set up their own offices of research integrity to ensure that their faculty and students are taught how to be honest in doing research. Such honesty is difficult to ensure, apparently, since there is a mushrooming industry carrying on research into research integrity: Centers for Research Ethics have sprung up at a number of universities, and there are opportunities for grant-getting for such scholarship — “Funding Opportunity Title: Research on Research Integrity (R21)”. Journals dedicated to the problem have of course been founded: Accountability in Research (volume 1 in 1989), Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics (volume 1 in 2001), Journal of Academic Ethics (since 2003), Research Ethics (since 2005), Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics (since 2006), and of course International Journal of Internet Research Ethics established in 2008. Dishonesty among PhDs and MDs has evidently become rampant.

Just how prevalent fraud has become in science is also illustrated by a proliferation not only of scholarly journals but also news items, blogs, and websites concerned with the problem. Much of the media still find this astonishing:  “A surprising upsurge in the number of scientific papers that have had to be retracted because they were wrong or even fraudulent has journal editors and ethicists wringing their hands” (emphasis added; New York Times, Editorial — Fraud in the scientific literature, 5 October 2012). Individual scientists come to recognize the problem not because it has become fully recognized within the scientific community but from unhappy personal experience (see e.g. the website Science Fraud: Highlighting Misconduct in Life Sciences Research). A few people, however, are recognizing that this points to systemic dysfunction, see e.g. Horace Freeland Judson in The Great Betrayal: Fraud In Science (2004) or Pete Etchells and Suzi Gage, “Scientific fraud is rife: it’s time to stand up for good science. The way we fund and publish science encourages fraud” (emphasis added; Guardian blog, 2 November 2012).

The crux of the matter is that too many would-be researchers are competing for inadequate available resources, under burdensome demands by universities as well as commercial institutions that researchers get grants and make patentable discoveries. No amount of regulation, or education in ethics, can bring disinterested ethical behavior when all the incentives point the opposite way, urging speedy production of profitable outcomes which in the normal course of scientific work can never be guaranteed, let alone quickly.

Dogmatism and barriers to progress
Outright fraud is only the most obviously damaging feature of this 3rd age of modern science. The absolute necessity for researchers to obtain uninterrupted flows of grant money brings enormous pressure to be working along productive lines, not to be wrong. But the essence of research is to enlarge understanding, which means venturing into the unknown. By definition, the unknown is a mystery, and by easy extension the outcome of genuine research is not predictable. Surely every serious scientist has sometimes hit a dead end and made mistakes along the way. The very history of science is a story of trials and errors. Therefore seeking to avoid making any mistakes or to take on only projects that are guaranteed to succeed means restricting research to banalities.

Furthermore, if one nevertheless goes wrong, for instance by clinging too long to a superseded theory, the incentives are strong to resist acknowledging the mistake for as long as possible. Established leaders, who as a group control available resources — grants, hiring, publishing — are in a good position to stave off threats to the established mainstream consensus. So contemporary science has also seen a marked increase in dogmatic adherence to outmoded approaches and interpretations; see Dogmatism  in Science and Medicine: How Dominant Theories Monopolize Research and Stifle the Search for Truth.

The problem is clear, the solution is not
I wish I could suggest remedies whose early introduction might be feasible. But a necessary first step is to understand what the problem is. No amount of research into research integrity is needed to recognize that the hothouse environment of cutthroat competition brings to would-be researchers temptations that a significant proportion of scientists are unable to resist.

The system of scientific and medical research has become seriously dysfunctional. Perhaps my analogy of success rates in grant-getting with actual unemployment was somewhat forced (80% unemployment?! The research system is broken), but it is surely no exaggeration to describe it as absurdly dysfunctional when senior researchers as well as would-be scientists have to construct 5 or 6 grant proposals for every one that succeeds. Instead of doing research, scientists spend huge amounts of time and effort on grant-writing (John P. A. Ioannidis, “Fund people not projects”, Nature 477 [2011] 529-31); and universities and other research institutions even have grant-writing specialists to assist their scientists by providing marketing and public-relations skills to make the grants appear more impressive.

The very system of project grants has become dysfunctional; for a cogently argued and documented discussion, see Donald W. Miller, Jr., “The government grant system: Inhibitor of truth and innovation?”, Journal of Information Ethics, 16 (2007) 59-69.
Half a century ago, it could seem appropriate to fund research in response to requests generated by scientists themselves. But as competition increased, attempts to judge competing requests led to increasingly inappropriate criteria; for instance it is common that grant proposals are expected to forecast the value of what the research will generate, when everyone knows that the most valuable results come serendipitously and not necessarily in line with researchers’ aims or expectations.

The whole research enterprise has become too large, too bureaucratic, too thoroughly dysfunctional for its own good and for the public good.

Advertisements

7 Responses to “Dishonesty and dysfunction in science”

  1. KC Blair said

    Hello.
    Wishing you excellence, Henry and all.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/02/opinion/health-cares-trick-coin.html?hp&_r=0
    Place it where it belongs, Henry.
    🙂

    • Henry Bauer said

      KC Blair:
      Thanks! Goldacre is often on the mark in identifying and critiquing the corruption of medicine and medical science. He’s just off base regarding HIV…. See my comments on my other blog: “Scientifically illiterate science pundit: Ben Goldacre” and “Recognizing REAL pseudo-science — Details, distinctions, and pundit Ben Goldacre”.

    • KC Blair said

      Henry, this site was designed by the designer for the designer. I cannot figure out anything and when I try to communicate with you you sometimes get it and most of the time I cannot tell what is happening. I have no control and I am not learning from my experience. You and I have to way to communicate with each other to help me and you. Please help! KC Blair 😦

      • Henry Bauer said

        KC Blair:
        I don’t understand what the problem is? Have you been unable to send a comment?

      • KC Blair said

        About a month ago or so ago I tried several times to send something about HIV-AIDS and memes. I could tell it was not accepted into the electronic system. Then it did make it in but I got no answer. I figured you rejected it but since I got no reply I did not know for sure what heppened.

        Now I have something to send but I do not know where it goes. I will try to send it here but I do not know if it is a Post or a Comment.

        Hello, Henry and readers.
        I wish you well and thank you Henry for your work here.

        Probably I have been a skeptic for as long as I have questioned authority. Often being curious I would research to learn if my skepticism had merit. Then being an optimist I would develop hypotheses. Finally, when able I would conduct experiments of my hypotheses so see if I could make our lives and world better.

        Recently, friends asked me to write a paper of some things I have learned. I have used it as an excuse to update and summarize my learning and know-how. Interestingly, as a scientist I have found allopathic medicine does more harm than good and “Love is all we need.” My paper can be found at their new, scientific website in their Syntropy Journal, http://www.lifeenergyscience.it/journal.htm.

        My friends are Ulisse Di Corpo and Antonella Vannini, whom live outside of Rome. They have made an important finding about syntropy, “the energy of love.” Here is a one-page summary of it: http://www.scienceandnonduality.com/workshop-ulisse-antonella-2012.shtml.

        KC 🙂

        I guess I’m in but I cannot scroll it. My website, name and http site are covering the second to last paragraph and I have little control and have no idea of what you will see. “Post Comment” leaves me with nothing but confusion. The screen is jumping up and down. Try to replicate to yourself. I’m gone.

      • Henry Bauer said

        KC Blair:
        Your comment came to me in the usual way for moderation. Maybe there’s some glitch in your browser or computer?

  2. lukas said

    Prof Bauer,
    if you have still not,i suggest you read the following article on the corruption of science written by a nobel: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/09/how-journals-nature-science-cell-damage-science and also you can comment on the last massive fraud in the hiv field: http://nypost.com/2013/12/26/professor-admits-faking-aids-vaccine-to-get-19m-in-grants/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s