Introduction
'No group of humans is completely honest: dishonest window-cleaners steal DVD-players; dishonest scientists invent data. Both—if not caught—profit from their dishonesty'. Science is the tool which gives answers to the 'how', 'why', and 'when' questions about the world we live in and researchers are those who interpret these answers for us. Researchers play an important role; every breakthrough that happens in a lab, affects the living world over. There is an extra pressure on the researchers to get their facts and results right.
Mistake or misconduct in science has become more frequent. In a survey conducted on scientists based in United States nearly 33% of the respondents said that they engaged in at least on instance of misconduct (Martinson, Anderson and de Vries 2005). Misconduct in Science includes intentionally making up or omitting data or results, manipulating research materials or processes, appropriating another person's ideas, processes, results or words, without giving credit.
Schön
Jan Hendrik Schön was a German scientist who galloped to the spotlight in 2000 and was banished to obscurity in 2002. Schön's field of research was condensed matter physics and nanotechnology. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Konstanz in 1997. In late 1997 he was hired by Bell Labs. Within a period of two years, Schön published around 90 articles, mostly in leading journals (Wikipedia n.d.). In 2001, he was listed as an author on an average of one research paper every eight days.
The Allegations and Repercussions
Other research groups were unable to replicate Schön's ground-breaking results. On reading his work carefully, some inconsistencies and duplications were found in Schön's results. Allegations of research misconduct were made on 25 papers of Schön. There were a total of 20 co-authors in all these works (Wikipedia n.d.).
In May 2002, the management of Bell Labs formed a committee to investigate "the possibility of scientific misconduct, the validity of the data and whether or not proper scientific methodology was used in papers by Hendrik Schön, et al., that are being challenged in the scientific community". The allegations were grouped in three basic categories: 1. Data Substitution, 2. Unrealistic Precision and 3. Contradictory physics (Bell Labs September 2002). The committee found Schön guilty of the above allegations. The committee also found Schön guilty of inappropriate storage and documentation of primary data. The committee found Schön as the only perpetrator and exonerated all the co-authors. Bell Labs fired Schön immediately after receiving the committee report. 21 of Schön's papers were withdrawn by the respective journals.
Sanctions on Schön
DFG, German Research Foundation, suspended his active right to vote in DFG elections and his right to serve on DFG committees for an eight-year period (DFG 2004). During this time, Schön will not be able to serve as a peer reviewer. In addition, Schön was barred from applying for DFG funding for eight years. The University of Konstanz revoked Schön's PhD degree.
Preventive measures
After reviewing Schön's case, it appears that the following measures could prevent further fraud of similar nature.
- Supervision: It is evident from Schön's case that there was a lack of supervision of his work (NPR Science Friday Report 2002). Most of his disputed work was conducted in Germany while his supervisor, Batlogg, was in US. The duty of the supervisor is to oversee the experimentation process, including checking the data and results.
- Storing experimental data: One of the most glaring aspects of Schön's episode was his inability to present his lab records to the committee. To avoid such excuses, institutions should have central storage system. All the researchers should be made to store their lab records in this central storage. This would also enable the co-authors and supervisors to access the data if and when they require.
- Publishing experimental data: Submitting experimental data to the journals should be made mandatory. This would help if the reviewer wants to check the data. This would deter duplicating or fabricating data. Once published the journals could also make these data available on the web for other researchers.
Conclusion
World over the law-enforcers try to come up with ways to prevent crime. But they haven't been successful because preventing crime is like building a huge dam while committing a crime is like finding a hole in the dam. This applies to the scientific community too. There could be many factors that force a scientist to commit fraud. These are excuses, not justifications. The researchers should be educated about their responsibility towards the institution and the society. Only this could prevent scientific misconduct.
PS:: This is an adaptation of my assignment, which also includes all the references. I haven't included the references in this blog.
