http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7330/132/b

 

BMJ 2002;324:132 ( 19 January )

News roundup

Medicine attracts most allegations of scientific dishonesty in Denmark

Caroline White London

Health science continues to be the area attracting the most complaints to the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty, the committees' latest annual report stated.

In 2000, 16 cases of alleged misconduct were submitted to the three subcommittees (representing health and medicine; social sciences and humanities; and natural, agricultural, veterinary, and technical science). Nine of the 16 cases were submitted to the committee for health and medical science.

The organisation is a statutory body, presided over by a high court judge, currently Hans Henrik Brydensholt.

Among the 16 cases, scientific dishonesty was not found in any of the three completed complaints, two of which involved health and medical science. Five complaints were dismissed, and nine were still pending at the time of publication.

One of the complaints not upheld concerned comments made in a newspaper by a senior researcher about someone else’s unpublished study results. The researcher had obtained the trial protocol from the company sponsoring the project. However, such behaviour was judged to have contravened good scientific practice. The committees’ view was that prior publication of research in the media before it had been properly evaluated was not good practice in general.

The other cases submitted to the health and medical science committee predominantly involved alleged publication misconduct. These included alleged unfair appraisal of an article intended for publication, wrongful use of data in a published article, and an author being prevented from publishing by coauthors. Others were over a contract dispute between a university and a pharmaceutical company and media request for information. The media request was subsequently referred to the Danish ombudsman.

The report highlighted the measures taken by the major US funding body, the National Institutes of Health, to tackle research fraud. Researchers applying for funding from that organisation have to prove they have completed a course in good scientific practice before grants are awarded. The stipulation also applies to non-US nationals wishing to obtain funding from the institutes.

Professor Michael Farthing, chairman of the committee on publication ethics in the United Kingdom, agreed that this type of training should be mandatory in Britain too and be the responsibility of employers. "It’s another form of checks and balances, to ensure that senior people don’t get away with murder," he said.

A meeting is expected within the next few months for all the relevant stakeholders in the United Kingdom to establish a practical blueprint for the establishment of an advisory body for research integrity.

A spokeswoman for the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty said that there were relatively few cases of scientific dishonesty because Danish universities took fraud very seriously. "If you are caught, the universities in Denmark throw you out at once, and being such a small country, you can’t get far enough away to start again without people knowing what you have done."

She added that Denmark was one of the first countries in the world to set up a body specifically to tackle fraud and that this had been very active producing guidelines. Moreover, all workers planning to undertake research had to take a course in scientific fraud.

There were more reported cases in medicine and science than in other disciplines because medical research was as big a field as all the other disciplines put together, she added.

The report can be obtained from the Danish Research Agency (tel 00 45 3544 6200). Its website is at www.forsk.dk

ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE.  THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.