What universities can learn from one of science’s biggest frauds

Andy

Andy

Retired committee member
By day, Andrew Grey studies bone health. But over the past few years, he’s developed another speciality: the case of one of science’s most prolific fraudsters.

From 1996 to 2013, Yoshihiro Sato, a Japanese bone-health researcher plagiarized work, fabricated data and forged authorships — prompting retractions of more than 60 studies in the scholarly literature so far. Grey and colleagues at the University of Auckland in New Zealand and the University of Aberdeen, UK, are among the researchers who have raised concerns about Sato’s work over the past decade or so, and they have studied the case in detail — in particular, how universities involved in the research investigated concerns about his work and allegations of misconduct.

At the World Conference on Research Integrity in Hong Kong from 2 to 5 June, Grey’s team described its years-long efforts to clean up Sato’s literature, and presented its analysis of the inquiries conducted by four universities in Japan and the United States ensnared in the scandal (the team published its analysis of three investigations in a paper in February1). Grey says their findings provide evidence to support a growing view in the academic community: that university investigations into research misconduct are often inadequate, opaque and poorly conducted. They challenge the idea that institutions can police themselves on research integrity and propose that there should be independent organizations to evaluate allegations of research fraud should.
Click to expand...
www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01884-2
 
It's a typical issue: self-regulation does not work. Ever. Never has. Never will. In industry, within organisations or in a regulated profession, the problem is the same: people operating under the same system generally cannot fix the system, especially when it is large.

Right now it's nearly offensive to even suggest that non-medical professionals should even have the temerity of criticizing how medicine operates. That means no criticism from outside the system, only by, from and for other medical professionals. The siege mentality is strong.

This is a common problem and it's hard to solve but it always involves independent oversight and transparency, both of which medicine reject categorically. It's also more of a legacy problem than anything anyone really designed this way. It's just the way it's always been done, but that's not an argument to keep on doing the same mistakes over and over again. The solution is simple, it's just rejected. It will have to be imposed.
 
Probably many factors at play that cause the reluctance of colleagues, or those with similar education/status to expose fraudulent research. I understand educational institutions promote collegial relationships amongst students in disciplines like medicine and dentistry. With this bond, members might be reluctant to point out the mistakes, missteps or fraud of others. It's like a family. Who wants to be the odd one out - the meat thermometer in the group - who pops up and yells fraud.

At the institutional level, ferreting out fraud and wrong doing, may reflect badly on the institution. There may often be pressure within to ignore or hide poor, or harmful research.

Regarding the research in question, I wonder what, and how far the harm spread that was based on this erroneous "science".
 
DokaGirl said:
At the institutional level, ferreting out fraud and wrong doing, may reflect badly on the institution. There may often be pressure within to ignore or hide poor, or harmful research.
Click to expand...
There is no graphite on the roof of reactor #4.

Not quite as bad but the reality of protecting institutional reputation being above good science is still extremely bad.
 
Sean said:
Yep. Ultimately the axe on BPS will be swung by the bean counters.

So perhaps the best path for now (in the UK) is to encourage independent rigorous studies on the outcomes of the IAPT project.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this grand experiment was doomed from the start but that won't stop it from surviving way past the point at which it's indefensible. It's only when the accounts are tallied that it will end. Bullshit talks, money walks.

Which basically makes all of us lab rats, with just as much say in the outcome. Even myself across the pond feel the consequences, purely for historical reasons. What a weird, dumb experiment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom