Science Isn't Really Willing To Investigate Misconduct

Seven years ago, Jerome Jacobstein, a nuclear physician at Cornell University began to suspect what he thought was serious research misconduct on the part of colleague Jeffrey S. Borer. Borer, a cardiologist, was working with Jacobstein on studies of how the heart functions under stress. While reading a draft of a report on their work by a medical student under Borer’s direct supervision, Jacobstein discovered that much of the methodology was, he thought, inaccurately described, with the inaccuracies tending to make the research appear to be more rigorous than it actually was. After hearing from the student that the inaccuracies had come from Borer, Jacobstein objected to the report, which was published without his name in the American Journal of Cardiology (51:1091-1097, 1983). Jacobstein also presented his evidence to Cornell authorities, who dismissed the charges after a brief inquiry lie then took the matter to NIH, where investigators deliberated for more than five years before coming to a conclusion last fall. The NIH observers found that “Borer s studies were characterized by a lack of attention to study requirements and generally accepted standards of recordkeeping,” but that there was “no evidence of intentional misconduct.” Jacobstein, now the Director of Nuclear Medicine at the Graduate Hospital in Philadelphia; believes that NIH’S investigation into the Borer affair shows that the scientific community is not serious about cleaning its house. And while this particular case may be closed, the debate over scientific fraud and misconduct continues. Here, Jacobstein argues that the Borer decision could come back to haunt the scientific community. The Borer case illustrates how far our leading scientific institutions will go to avoid reaching the logical conclusions from their own investigations—and how reluctant they are to find scientists guilty of intentional misconduct. The NIH report of the Borer affair not only called attention to “consequential” exaggerations and “significant” misstatements, but also explicitly recognized that “in all of these instances, it appears that the authors knew the facts and could have presented the research more accurately.” This is hardly consistent with their conclusion that Dr. Borer was innocent of “intentional misconduct” and their failure to hold any of the other authors responsible for the inaccuracies. NIH’s handling of the case also suggests that research institutions will not be held accountable for their own conduct in cases of alleged misconduct. Cornell conducted an inquiry, which it claimed was a “thorough investigation,” into the key Borer paper. But some of the exculpatory information it provided to NIH was shown later to be false. How did NIH respond? Although it chastised Cornell for conducting its inquiry hastily, NIH’s final report commends the university for responding “appro- priately to most of NIH’s... requests for information.” The institutions of science, from universities to NIH itself, are reluctant to probe allegations and unwilling to punish offenders in a meaningful way—except perhaps for the most extreme and overt kinds of misconduct, such as plagarism or the fabrication of data. The consequences of such. a half-hearted and irresolute approach are not bard to predict. Take the Borer affair, for example. In response to an NIH “recommendation” that a “clarification” of the manuscript be issued, a letter was published in the American Journal of Cardiology (62:841,1988) offering two corrections to the manuscript and apologizing for these “unintentional errors.” Nowhere was there an indication that these errors were significant, or that the very validity of the paper was in doubt. Kid Gloves Research institutions have too many conflicts of interest to be expected to unearth, let alone publicize, research misconduct occurring within their walls. If NIH is not willing to hold them responsible, there will be no one within the scientific community to protect us from this kind of behavior. But in the Borer affair, NIH has sent out precisely the wrong signals; namely, that misconduct will be treated lightly, that coauthors will not be held responsible, and that institutions will be handled with kid gloves. And such signals only increase the likelihood that Congress will take over the role that NIH appears determined to relinquish by default.

Science Isn't Really Willing To Investigate Misconduct

The Scientist Staff

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of