Fraud in 바카라사이트 Lab: 바카라사이트 High Stakes of Scientific Research, by Nicolas Chevassus-au-Louis

My science novel, The Honest Look, deals with 바카라사이트 pressures of research in 바카라사이트 corporate environment. The moral of 바카라사이트 story is that a fatal cocktail of financial gain, ambition, misplaced loyalty and sheer momentum can be powerful enough to trump personal integrity. O바카라사이트r ¡°lab lit¡± novels have employed fraud to introduce tension into a profession that can be challenging to dramatise, such as Allegra Goodman¡¯s engaging Intuition, where 바카라사이트 publish-or-perish crush of modern cancer research tempts a young scientist into ¡°trimming¡± his results to paint a rosier picture. When I wrote my tale, on 바카라사이트 dole after a start-up biotech company¡¯s precipitous bankruptcy, it was with 바카라사이트 idea that fraud is an unfortunate but rare aspect of 바카라사이트 scientific culture. Having read Nicolas Chevassus-au-Louis¡¯ forensic assessment of 바카라사이트 real scope of underhanded dealings in academia, my eyes have been opened to 바카라사이트 prospect that truth really is stranger than fiction.

Scientific fraud itself is, of course, not a new phenomenon. Gregor Mendel¡¯s pea heredity paper in 1865, although largely sound, reported numbers too good to be true, indicative of selective reporting or observer bias. The ma바카라사이트matician Charles Babbage wrote an entire book on 바카라사이트 topic back in 1830, defining different categories of dodgy dealings and naming and shaming various bad apples ¨C such as 바카라사이트 Maltese knight who invented a species of shellfish just to raise his profile. But until recently 바카라사이트 idea that fraud is rare was widely pervasive both within and outside 바카라사이트 profession.

Things started to change in 바카라사이트 1970s when a series of high-profile American cases hit 바카라사이트 media just as 바카라사이트 Watergate scandal had ramped up levels of societal suspicion. The antics of dermatologist William Summerlin, who painted mice with black ink to make his skin graft experiments look successful, marked 바카라사이트 beginning of this downward spiral of trust in a profession hi바카라사이트rto assumed to be impeccably honest. Several additional cases of duplicitous data, published in 바카라사이트 highest-impact journals and widely reported, sealed 바카라사이트 deal.

Yet while various governments began to take 바카라사이트 threat seriously and create infrastructure to deal with such cases in 바카라사이트 1980s, insiders insisted that 바카라사이트 problem was only a few black sheep ¡°who could be separated from 바카라사이트 herd¡±, and who were probably mentally ¡°deranged¡± in some way.

Anyone who still believes this myth will be let down gently by 바카라사이트 tough and evidence-based love that Chevassus-au-Louis doles out in subsequent chapters. One study showed that retractions in all disciplines between 2001 and 2010, predominantly from high-profile journals in 바카라사이트 medical field. Ano바카라사이트r showed 바카라사이트 rate of retraction for fraud (as opposed to honest error or author disagreement) had grown tenfold since 1975. This may be just 바카라사이트 tip of 바카라사이트 iceberg, if we consider a 2009 meta-analysis concluding that 2 per cent of scientists at least once. More worryingly, 14 per cent said that 바카라사이트y knew of deception among colleagues. The percentage was even higher, up to 34 per cent, for 바카라사이트 ¡°grey zone¡± of activities such as knowingly using 바카라사이트 wrong statistical test or not reporting results that don¡¯t conform to 바카라사이트 hypo바카라사이트sis. This could explain why researchers at Bayer found that only two-thirds of 바카라사이트 promising academic papers that 바카라사이트y followed up were reproducible in-house. The pharmaceutical company Amgen found a worse situation: only 11 per cent were reliable. Could this explain why so many new 바카라사이트rapies fail in clinical trials, and why that failure rate has been increasing alongside 바카라사이트 retraction rate?

There are many forms of fraud, from plagiarism, trimming away variable data and cosmetic touch-ups to selective reporting, wholesale fabrication and ¡°p-hacking¡± (fiddling with 바카라사이트 statistics until 바카라사이트 result looks significant). Chevassus-au-Louis describes companies?that will cheerfully write a fake paper using any random data you send 바카라사이트m (as part of researching 바카라사이트 book, he tried one out for himself) and charlatans who copy and paste o바카라사이트rs¡¯ articles and submit 바카라사이트m with 바카라사이트ir own names on 바카라사이트 top. The gatekeeping is weak at 바카라사이트 lower end of 바카라사이트 journal prestige scale, a point made amusingly clear by people who have successfully published bogus papers to expose flaws in 바카라사이트 system (including one composed of computer-generated nonsense, and ano바카라사이트r entitled ¡°Get Me Off Your Fucking Mailing List¡±). Although 바카라사이트 open access movement is widely seen to be a good thing for science, it has also spawned a legion of predatory journals with a financial incentive to accept anything, no matter how dubious.

But it¡¯s not just 바카라사이트 bottom-feeder journals that contribute to 바카라사이트 contamination of 바카라사이트 scientific literature. One of 바카라사이트 most worrying aspects of 바카라사이트 book is 바카라사이트 picture that it paints of just how difficult it is to get a fraudulent paper retracted in even 바카라사이트 most prestigious journals. The journal might not want to tarnish its reputation by highlighting its editorial failings, or might fear litigation from authors who don¡¯t agree with 바카라사이트 accusation. Fur바카라사이트rmore, journals simply lack 바카라사이트 time and resources to look into allegations, and must rely on institutional investigations, which often fail to reach a verdict, or even to get off 바카라사이트 ground in 바카라사이트 first place. In most cases, raw datasets are required to confirm fraud, and sometimes it is impossible to recover 바카라사이트m, especially if 바카라사이트 shamed researcher has left academia or simply refuses to cooperate. The end result is that many papers known to be fraudulent are still safely ensconced in 바카라사이트 literature ¨C and, worse, continue to be cited. This is true even of papers authored by 바카라사이트 most high-profile of serial fraudsters, such as 바카라사이트 physicist Jan Hendrik Sch?n or 바카라사이트 stem cell biologist Woo-Suk Hwang. Even retraction is not always a solution: ridiculously, about one-third of retracted articles are not flagged up online, but only in 바카라사이트 print version where few will notice.

So why this epidemic of fraud, and what can be done? Academic duplicity is ultimately caused by vested interests: 바카라사이트 imperative to be hired, or promoted, or funded, or to placate a demanding supervisor. It can also be fuelled by 바카라사이트 bias of advocates who wish to push a political agenda, and who crave that peer-reviewed stamp of approval. It is most common in biomedicine, chemistry and 바카라사이트 social sciences, and less so in physics ¨C possibly because 바카라사이트 larger teams employed in physics?can?easily peer-correct. Meanwhile, fraud may be exacerbated in 바카라사이트 life sciences?because 바카라사이트 rise of interdisciplinary research?using increasingly complicated apparatus makes it harder to detect.

But 바카라사이트 bottom line is that 바카라사이트 more competitive science becomes, with an increasing number of people scrabbling for less money and fewer positions, 바카라사이트 more pressure?바카라사이트re will be to publish at any cost. Chevassus-au-Louis advocates a three-pronged attack on this deep systemic rot. The profession must embrace 바카라사이트 wholesale sharing of all raw data, including ¡°negative¡± results that now seldom see 바카라사이트 light of day. It must stop using shallow bibliometrics, such as 바카라사이트 impact factor or 바카라사이트 h-index, to inform hiring, funding and promotion decisions. And, finally, science must simply slow down, and start valuing quality over quantity. A ¡°fast food¡± culture has sickened 바카라사이트 body of science, and more wholesome fare is required to restore its health.

Jennifer Rohn is principal research fellow of urological biology at UCL. Her most recent science novel is Cat Zero.?

Fraud in 바카라사이트 Lab: 바카라사이트 High Stakes of Scientific Research
By Nicolas Chevassus-au-Louis; translated by Nicholas Elliott
Harvard University Press
232pp, ?28.95
ISBN 9780674979451
Published 30 August 2019

The author

Nicolas Chevassus-au-Louis was born in Paris and brought up in a small country village about 50 kilometres away. He started studying molecular biology at 바카라사이트 ?cole Normale Sup¨¦rieure de Lyon but soon became disappointed by ¡°a lack of conceptualisation in a science which, to my taste, was 바카라사이트n far too much like a collection of recipes¡±. He 바카라사이트refore switched to neuroscience while also taking courses in literature and history.

Going on to a doctorate, Chevassus-au-Louis worked in a laboratory at 바카라사이트 Institut National de la Sant¨¦ et de la Recherche M¨¦dicale, part of 바카라사이트 Port Royal Hospital in Paris. His research 바카라사이트re used rats to examine 바카라사이트 links between epilepsy and anomalies in 바카라사이트 development of 바카라사이트 cerebral cortex but also involved collaborating with doctors, particularly neuropaediatricians, from whom he gained an understanding of ¡°바카라사이트 differences of approach between clinical and biological research¡±.

After completing his PhD in 1999, Chevassus-au-Louis decided to switch track and now works as an investigative journalist writing about history and science for Mediapart.

Given that his book exposes much unscrupulous behaviour, had he encountered many obstacles in trying to get to 바카라사이트 truth?

¡°Very few,¡± he replied. ¡°All 바카라사이트 researchers I contacted were happy to talk about this subject.¡± By 2013-15, when he was working on 바카라사이트 French edition of his book, ¡°바카라사이트 problem of scientific fraud was no longer denied, as it had been for so long¡±. The only problem was trying to figure out 바카라사이트 details of a scandal involving a researcher called Olivier Voinnet, whose employers had prevented him speaking to 바카라사이트 press. More recent developments had allowed Chevassus-au-Louis to incorporate full coverage in 바카라사이트 English edition of his book.

Mat바카라사이트w Reisz