The ORI (Office of Research Integrity), is a Human Health Services office that deals with research misconduct within its domain. Its web page contains summary cases, categorized by year.
As a case study of its investigations, I picked that of Chetram, Mahandranauth Anand. In this summary, the ORI first defines the person who committed the misconduct, then moves to highlighting the misconduct in details, and finally gives an account to the consequences.
In our case, Chetram, Mahandranauth Anand is a former post-doctoral fellow who conducted cancer research and has received several grants from government agencies. The ORI has found that he has:
- Falsified images and data underlying that a DNA regulates cancer cells in an unfunded grant application, a grant, and a submitted manuscript.
- After being aware of the previous finding, he has falsified data of gene expression in leukemia cells in a spreadsheet, which was included in a submitted but unpublished manuscript.
In consequence, Chetram, Mahandranauth Anand voluntarily agreed to refrain from contracting with US government agencies and from serving in PHS advisory or review committees.
It strikes me to see research misconduct committed in a domain as sensitive as cancer research. Millions of people die from cancer every year and billions of dollars are spent on cancer research. While I understand that researchers are humans and they are prone to err, I would have expected much higher integrity from a person who works in the medical domain. His actions could have severely harmed a multitude of lives, not to mention the waste of taxpayer money
While the ORI’s efforts at uncovering research misconduct are commendable, the consequences are meager and pale in comparison to the deed, in my opinion. From reading a couple of other cases, it seems that most of them end with a voluntary exclusion agreement that lasts for a couple of years. This “punishment” does not seem to match the committed act of misconduct. First, the fact that it is voluntary means it could have been avoided. Second, while I believe in giving second chances in life and that a person is redeemable, I do not think the exclusion agreement sends a strong message that would deter the offender or anyone in their position from repeating the same act in the future. More severe measures, especially in sensitive research fields such as public health, are warranted.
Finally, this case got me intrigued. i wondered whether there are any equivalent research misconduct committees for other fields, such as engineering. From the quick search I did for my own field of computer science, there seems to be barely any similar coordinated efforts. This gap in research integrity enforcement can have severe impact, especially at a time when software has deeply pervaded our lives and impacts every single details of it from national security, to medical surgeries, to social media platforms.
Hello Mohannad, it was fun reading your blogpost on research misconduct. While writing my reflections of research misconduct on my webpage, I also realized that a lot of health-related research are being conducted inappropriately. I really agree with your opinion that the penalty for these misconducts is not really a match for the offense. Well, I think most of researchers in this area are usually under some kind of pressure to produce significant result. Or better still, they want to be recognized for making an impact in the community. This however from my opinion, does not warrant falsifying of data and results. I believe that an insignificant result is also publish-worthy as this will show the public that a particular method is wrong or inappropriate, which can still be regarded as a contribution to knowledge.
So, I will like to ask a question, do you think that the standards for publication should be raised? Well, if yes, how can this be implemented?
Once again, thanks for sharing your insight!
Thank you for your valuable comment, Bola!
You raise a very interesting point. It might seem that that raising the standards means more pressure on publishers.
But, I believe we have a somewhat toxic interpretation of research now a days. We always want results to shine and impress. But, science does not work like that. Science is about describing nature. You can’t do an experiment and force your way to make it work the way you desire. You have to try, and then the results will speak for themselves. This is not the industry where you want a product with specific functionality. Research is not about customers. It is about nature and the scientific method.
Hence, I wish the scientific community becomes more accepting of negative results. I would much rather see negative results published than someone “forcing” their research to look like it is working… but that might be too much to ask from society these days.