The Impact of Conviction of Scientific Misconduct

There is an interesting report in Science magazine on the effect of being found guilty of scientific misconduct. The authors selected the 43 researchers with completed doctorate degrees from the 106 scientists found guilty by the Office of Scientific Integrity between 1996 and 2001 of committing scientific misconduct.

Thirty-six of these scientists were found guilty of falsification or fabrication, 10 were guilty of plagiarism, and 12 were guilty of "misrepresentation." Seventeen scientists had committed only one infraction, and the remaining 26 had committed multiple breaches.

All 43 individuals were excluded from Public Health Service (PHS) advisory boards (for a mean 3.5 years), 30 were also debarred from PHS grants and contracts (mean 3.4 years), 20 were subjected to institutional oversight (mean 3.2 years), and 14 were required to retract or correct papers. Overall, these scientists received an average of 2.5 sanctions; of 94 total sanctions levied, 58% were 3-year debarments.

So what happened to their scientific careers?

Searching PubMed, we found publication data for 37 of the 43 individuals......Mean publication rate per year before the finding of scientific misconduct (dating back to each individual's first publication) was 2.1 (SD = 1.7, range 0.2 to 5.9) and after the finding 1.0 (SD = 1.2, range 0.0 to 5.6) (dating up to late 2003). This decline was significant (t = 4.66, P < 0.0001). Twelve individuals published nothing after the misconduct finding.........

Interviews were held with seven individuals, who all reported financial and personal hardship. Six hired lawyers to defend themselves; surprisingly, three reported receiving some assistance from their institutions, one with legal help and two with nonfinancial support. Several reported that they could not appeal their cases because they lacked the resources to do so. Several became physically ill and experienced major disruptions in their personal lives.

Nonetheless, most reported that they had recovered or sustained useful scientific lives after initial shocks to their reputations. Indeed, six of the seven continued to publish in the years after the ORI determination (the exception had moved to industry).

The authors point out that the people that they interviewed were more successful after found guilty than were those not interviewed.

Comment: I find this a very appropriate situation. Being found guilty of scientific misconduct carries severe consequences. No one should take those consequences lightly.

On the other hand, a scientist once found guilty can resuscitate his/her career and again make use of his/her training and experience to participate in research and other scientific activities. Redemption is possible, as it should be! JAD