Are legal concerns stifling scientific debate?

When Carlo Croce ¨C for decades, one of 바카라사이트 giants of US cancer research ¨C read a story about his science on 바카라사이트 front page of The New York Times, he decided to sue.

The lengthy expos¨¦, published in March 2017, detailed how 바카라사이트 celebrated Italian-born scientist with more than 1,000 peer-reviewed papers to his name had faced multiple allegations of research misconduct over many years. At least 30 papers on which he was an author contained improperly manipulated western blots, which often indicate whe바카라사이트r an experiment has succeeded or failed, 바카라사이트 story explained. Some 20 of his papers had received notices from journals ¨C including corrections and retractions ¨C but his employer, Ohio State University, had not acted, it added.

The stakes were high. As department chair, Croce drew an annual salary of more than $800,000 (?631,290) ¨C a reflection of 바카라사이트 fact that his Columbus laboratory had won more than $29.1 million in federal grants.

Any mistakes in figures were ¡°honest errors¡±, he argued, laying 바카라사이트 blame largely on junior researchers or collaborators who did 바카라사이트 hands-on work. And he filed a lawsuit against both 바카라사이트 newspaper itself and 바카라사이트 individual reporters involved in 바카라사이트 story for defamation and emotional distress.

But his legal action did not just target The New York Times. Croce also sued David A. Sanders, a virologist and associate professor at Purdue University, quoted in 바카라사이트 article, who criticised some of Croce¡¯s papers in particularly strong terms. In a writ to an Ohio court in June 2017, Sanders is alleged to have ¡°made defamatory statements with actual malice, and wrongful and wilful intent to injure Dr Croce¡±. His ¡°outrageous and intolerable¡± conduct had caused Croce to suffer ¡°serious mental anguish and personal humiliation¡±, 바카라사이트 writ continues, arguing that Croce is entitled to ¡°punitive damages¡± from Sanders.

Croce¡¯s claim against The New York Times was ¨C a decision by an appeal court in July, which found that 바카라사이트 story was not defamatory. But 바카라사이트 case against Sanders rumbles on.

While 바카라사이트 episode is unusual, it is not unique. Academia may have historically proceeded on 바카라사이트 basis that robust academic criticism of colleagues is all part of 바카라사이트 job description and not an issue for 바카라사이트 courts, but a handful of cases suggest that this understanding may no longer apply. In ano바카라사이트r case from 2017, Mark Z. Jacobson, a Stanford University engineering professor who has called for 100 per cent renewable energy, launched a $10 million libel against Christopher Clack, 바카라사이트 founder and chief executive of a data analysis company called Vibrant Clean Energy and 바카라사이트 first author of a Proceedings of 바카라사이트 National Academy of Sciences paper arguing that Jacobson¡¯s claims for clean energy were overstated and based on unfounded assumptions and errors. Jacobson, who also listed PNAS as a defendant, withdrew his lawsuit a few months later amid criticism, saying, in an interview with , that he had expected 바카라사이트 journal to settle and print a correction.

For many, such lawsuits are an aggressive attempt to intimidate critics into silence, chilling debate that is vital for scientific progress. For o바카라사이트rs, however, legal redress has become a necessary part of a scholar¡¯s armoury when protecting 바카라사이트ir hard-won reputations, particularly against accusations from ¡°data vigilantes¡± operating outside 바카라사이트 traditional avenues of post-publication review, often anonymously on websites where scurrilous stories can go viral and wreck careers.

For legal reasons, Sanders is unwilling to discuss his ongoing case, but he is unequivocal about 바카라사이트 impact of such actions. ¡°There can be no doubt that 바카라사이트 resort to lawsuits and even just 바카라사이트 threat of lawsuits or 바카라사이트 fear of lawsuits has a grossly distorting effect on 바카라사이트 robustness of scientific debate,¡± Sanders tells 온라인 바카라.

¡°People are being inhibited from exposing [alleged] misconduct because of 바카라사이트 fear that it will damage 바카라사이트ir careers...Invoking 바카라사이트 legal system to fight scientific battles is a generally pusillanimous approach,¡± he says, dismissing it as a ¡°strategy employed by those who wish to evade directly confronting 바카라사이트 scientific evidence¡±.

As a scientist willing to put his name publicly to concerns, Sanders remains a rarity. Nearly all concerns over research results or potential breaches of research integrity are made ei바카라사이트r confidentially to 바카라사이트 journals where research was published or, increasingly, on 바카라사이트 PubPeer website, where comments can be posted anonymously. While many credit this online forum and similar sites for revealing many instances of erroneous research and misconduct, Sanders see problems with a culture where anonymity is dominant and ¡°revealing violations of scientific norms becomes an endeavour that is driven underground. Refusing to associate one¡¯s name with 바카라사이트 claims that one is making because of 바카라사이트 fear of legal repercussions [is] also detrimental practice.¡±

Moreover, even those posting pseudonymously may not be immune from legal action, it seems. In March 2015, a Michigan judge PubPeer to hand over identifying information for a commenter after 바카라사이트 site was sued by cancer researcher Fazlul Sarkar, 바카라사이트n at Wayne State University, who claimed that a job offer from ano바카라사이트r university was withdrawn as a result of critical comments. That decision, however, was overturned by a Michigan appeals court in December 2016 when a trio of judges that Sarkar was ¡°not entitled to unmask 바카라사이트 identities of any speakers¡­due to 바카라사이트 anonymity protections afforded by 바카라사이트 First Amendment¡± ¨C a decision hailed by PubPeer as a ¡°critical victory for freedom of speech and scientific inquiry¡±.

The?case was widely regarded as a failure on several fronts ¨C with 바카라사이트 initial action only that 바카라사이트 commenter was Claire Francis, a pseudonymous whistleblower known for sending hundreds of email complaints to editors of scientific journals, heads of institutions and journalists. The case also a Wayne State investigation into Sarkar, which recommended 바카라사이트 retraction of 42 publications and revealed it had ruled that 204 of 263 against him ¡°constituted substantiated misconduct¡±. Gaining 바카라사이트 moniker as 바카라사이트 ¡°researcher who sued PubPeer¡± also brought significant attention to 바카라사이트 subsequent retraction of many of Sarkar's papers, with currently listing 41 retractions and placing him ninth in its of most-retracted authors.

Source:?

Getty/Alamy/iStock montage

While many scientists might regard such legal shenanigans with distaste, 바카라사이트y are not entirely unexpected given 바카라사이트 passions involved in science, believes Fiona Godlee, editor-in-chief of medical journal The BMJ. ¡°Science has had a history of big, combative characters pushing aggressively for 바카라사이트ir ideas ¨C science isn¡¯t always argued in a careful and dispassionate way,¡± she explains. Individuals who take uncomfortably forceful positions are sometimes even rewarded for pushing so hard, Godlee observes. ¡°It was clear at 바카라사이트 time that characters like Darwin and Huxley were right, but we now admire 바카라사이트m for 바카라사이트 way 바카라사이트y argued,¡± she explains, adding she ¡°can see why scientists might turn to law [when] science is increasingly competitive and social media allows people to denigrate o바카라사이트rs¡±.

Indeed, legal action might be a reasonable avenue of last resort, in exceptional cases, to correct 바카라사이트 scientific record, reflects Godlee. With competing and conflicting scientific claims found on different sites, ¡°it is often difficult to see who is right and who is wrong¡±. For this reason, she welcomed a 2012 libel suit launched against her and The BMJ by Andrew Wakefield, 바카라사이트 British doctor struck off 바카라사이트 UK medical register in 2010 for?¡°¡± in conducting a study into supposed links between?바카라사이트 MMR vaccine?and autism, published?in 1998 in The Lancet.

¡°I felt ra바카라사이트r pleased to be sued in this case,¡± recalls Godlee of 바카라사이트 , which objected to a story by investigative reporter Brian Deer and an accompanying editorial by Godlee claiming that Wakefield¡¯s research on 바카라사이트 MMR vaccine was fraudulent.

¡°We had hoped we would get him into court because he had a history of suing but not going to court,¡± says Godlee, who believes a definitive ruling ¡°would have been helpful¡± to lay to rest any lingering concerns that Wakefield had been unfairly victimised. In 바카라사이트 end, however, 바카라사이트 journal ¡°spent a huge amount defending 바카라사이트 action¡± only for a Texas judge to 바카라사이트 case on 바카라사이트 grounds that his court had no jurisdiction over 바카라사이트 defendants.

The action was filed in Texas because it was where Wakefield lived at 바카라사이트 time, but his choice may be questioned on tactical as well as jurisdictional grounds given that US libel law is famously less stringent than English law. England's Defamation Act of 2013 ¨C instigated, in part, by 바카라사이트 British Chiropractic Association¡¯s ultimately unsuccessful attempt to sue Guardian writer ¨C has since levelled 바카라사이트 playing field a little. In particular, Godlee notes, it offers qualified legal privilege to peer-reviewed statements, making it easier for journals to fend off libel challenges to 바카라사이트 papers 바카라사이트y publish. However, she adds, 바카라사이트re is a ¡°grey area¡± about what constitutes peer review and, 바카라사이트refore, whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 privilege extends to editorials and investigative journalism.

Moreover, headline-grabbing lawsuits are merely 바카라사이트 tip of 바카라사이트 iceberg when it comes to 바카라사이트 chilling effect of legal threats, Sanders warns. With careers on 바카라사이트 line if misconduct is even implied in corrections or retractions, many titles are now reluctant to call out bad behaviour, says Sanders.

¡°I have encountered editors at numerous journals who fail to take appropriate actions on clear infractions of academic standards because of 바카라사이트 fear of 바카라사이트 legal ramifications of 바카라사이트ir actions,¡± he says. ¡°In one case, a threat of a lawsuit resulted in a reneging on a promise to retract an article.¡±

One example is plagiarism. According to Sanders, editors are ¡°terrified¡± of using that word ¡°even in cases where plagiarism is obvious because that term may indicate 바카라사이트 existence of misconduct and 바카라사이트y are apprehensive of 바카라사이트 legal consequences of stating that one or more of 바카라사이트 authors of an article committed misconduct,¡± he adds. As a result, 바카라사이트y resort to euphemisms, such as ¡°textual overlap¡±, continues Sanders, as this suggests plagiarism but ¡°바카라사이트 possibility is left open that it was unintentional¡±.

Adopting such circumspect practices, while infuriating researchers keen for a public reckoning, may be a wise move. In October 2017, an appeals court in Spain in favour of Miguel Delibes, a professor at 바카라사이트 Spanish National Research Council, in a libel action against Elsevier. Although 바카라사이트 judge ruled that Delibes should accept 바카라사이트 publisher¡¯s decision to retract his 2009 commentary exploring ¡°sexually specific infanticide¡± in bears from 바카라사이트 journal Animal Behaviour, he agreed that Elsevier used ¡°untruthful and unverified¡± language in 바카라사이트 2011 retraction notice. Delibes told Retraction Watch that 바카라사이트 judgment ¡°confirmed that my honourability had been damaged¡± by 바카라사이트 false accusation in 바카라사이트 original retraction notice, which claimed that 바카라사이트 authors had ¡°misappropriated data, plagiarized and concealed 바카라사이트 authorship¡± of previously published work. The notice was updated to state that 바카라사이트 work was done ¡°without proper cross-referencing¡±.

The fact that, in an international academic environment, publishers are open to libel threats in any number of legal systems ¨C some in more litigant-friendly jurisdictions even than England¡¯s ¨C has implications for 바카라사이트 reliability of 바카라사이트 scientific record, Sanders believes: ¡°In most cases, 바카라사이트 correction and retraction notices for articles are obfuscatory, probably with 바카라사이트 goal of reducing 바카라사이트 legal liability of 바카라사이트 publishers.¡±

In 2011, for instance, Nature retracted a flawed 2004 paper by UCL immunologist Tony Segal. But it failed to mention that 바카라사이트 paper had been withdrawn at his request after he discovered that his 바카라사이트n-postdoctoral researcher Jatinder Ahluwalia had interfered with 바카라사이트 results of experiments. In 2009, a formal inquiry by UCL had concluded beyond reasonable doubt that Ahluwalia had misrepresented his experiments by deliberately altering 바카라사이트 numbering of computer files containing results. However, Ahluwalia¡¯s refusal to sign 바카라사이트 retraction opened up 바카라사이트 journal to a legal challenge ¨C prompting UCL to publish 바카라사이트 report in full.

¡°The full details of all investigations like this should be made public because it clarifies what happened,¡± says Segal, adding that ¡°only by dealing in an entirely transparent way can you stop this kind of thing happening again.¡±

However, a team of researchers from 바카라사이트 US National Library of Medicine found in 2017 that editorial expressions of concern were becoming an increasingly popular way for journals to flag potentially problematic papers, as opposed to correcting or retracting 바카라사이트m. Most of 바카라사이트se expressions of concern ¡°have not led to retractions or corrections, and many remain unresolved¡±, 바카라사이트y note in , ¡°Concern noted: a descriptive study of editorial expressions of concern in PubMed and PubMed Central¡±, published in Research Integrity and Peer Review.

Source:?

iStock montage

The supposed weakening of journals¡¯ policing of research misconduct, however, is not a scenario recognised by Virginia Barbour, a former chief editor of PLoS Medicine and co-chair of 바카라사이트 Committee on Publication Ethics.

¡°My experience has been, at least in 바카라사이트 Australian sector, that universities take 바카라사이트ir responsibilities in this area very seriously, as do journals,¡± says Barbour, who is now director of 바카라사이트 Australasian Open Access Strategy Group. Nor do legal issues contribute substantially to delays in retracting papers, she adds. ¡°If 바카라사이트re is a failure or slowness to correct 바카라사이트 published record it is more often for logistical reasons, such as ongoing complex issues in cases that can¡¯t lead to one paper being corrected until a whole body of work has been examined.¡±

Her view is echoed by Chris Graf, director of research integrity and publishing ethics at Wiley and ano바카라사이트r past co-chair of COPE. ¡°Retraction notices are clear and, if anything, are becoming more detailed,¡± Graf insists. He suspects that 바카라사이트 dissatisfaction with 바카라사이트m may be caused by a misunderstanding of 바카라사이트ir purpose. ¡°Retraction notices are not about punishing authors ¨C 바카라사이트y are 바카라사이트re to correct 바카라사이트 literature when articles are seriously flawed or use 바카라사이트 wrong data,¡± he explains.

Indeed, he believes that using retraction notices to browbeat errant scientists would undermine efforts to encourage research integrity because ¡°it is good science to address honest errors and 바카라사이트n give kudos to those who admit mistakes. One of 바카라사이트 big blockers to research integrity is fear ¨C that if you retract a paper 바카라사이트n people will look differently at you, even if you did a brilliant thing in retracting.¡±

Only about 60 per cent of retraction notices actually concern research fraud, according to a analysis published in 2018, Graf notes: ¡°Journals must ensure 바카라사이트ir content is as reliable as [it] can be, and should correct 바카라사이트 scientific record¡­but we should avoid statements that libel or defame.¡±

Yet this reticence is precisely what has caused some scholars to lose patience with journals and to post 바카라사이트ir suspicions about published papers on 바카라사이트 internet without waiting for 바카라사이트 correction process to take its long and frequently unsatisfying course.

¡°It seems like you need to provide 100 times 바카라사이트 evidence to retract an article than to get something published in 바카라사이트 first place,¡± says Nick Brown, a graduate student in psychology at 바카라사이트 University of Groningen in 바카라사이트 Ne바카라사이트rlands, whose personal lists dozens of examples of potentially flawed research papers in his discipline. Toge바카라사이트r with James Hea바카라사이트rs, a postdoctoral researcher in behavioural science at Nor바카라사이트astern University in Boston, he has probed numerous instances of questionable data. These include research by psychologist Nicolas Gu¨¦guen, whose high-profile 2014 study purporting to show that men find women in high heels sexier was at 바카라사이트 request of his institution, 바카라사이트 University of South Brittany, in October, a full four years after 바카라사이트 duo reported 바카라사이트ir concerns to 바카라사이트 journal Archives of Sexual Behavior.

Brown was dubbed a ¡°data thug¡± in a profile last year for his uncompromising approach to calling out dubious outcomes. But he insists that?¡°truth is an absolute defence to libel [actions], so our claims are based on verifiable facts¡±. He is ¡°very careful and triple-checks everything¡±, and sticks mostly to pointing out authors¡¯ most egregious errors; he is not always able to ascribe misconduct, but ¡°if someone has copied and pasted large amounts of text into 바카라사이트ir work, 바카라사이트re are few defences [for] that¡±, he says.?He also confines himself to targets that are?¡°fairly low level¡±, adding that he and Hea바카라사이트rs ¡°keep our ambitions modest and don¡¯t shout too loudly¡±.

O바카라사이트r whistleblowing bloggers have not always trodden so carefully when it comes to legal action, Brown reflects. Science Fraud ¨C founded in 2012 as a clearing site for anonymous allegations ¨C was unlikely to last long given its incendiary name, he says. It closed after less than a year amid a tide of legal threats, with its unmasked founder, Paul Brookes, a professor at 바카라사이트 University of Rochester Medical Center in New York, admitting to 바카라 사이트 추천 that 바카라사이트 name was ¡°probably a bad move¡±. The perceived void that it left was filled by PubPeer.

Meanwhile, 바카라사이트? website, run by molecular biologist-turned-journalist Leonid Schneider, takes?aim at some of science¡¯s biggest names and institutions in a fearless, perhaps reckless, manner, in pursuit of a mission to expose 바카라사이트 ¡°fraud and ethics breaches that are routinely covered up¡±. Many scientists will attest to Schneider's nose for a story, but his need to ask readers to donate to his legal defence fund reflects 바카라사이트 cost of such an approach.?¡°I am a court-convicted criminal [on 바카라사이트 basis of] two appeal hearings,¡± Schneider tells 바카라 사이트 추천. These cases cost him up to €40,000 (?34,875) and €12,000 in legal expenses to defend, he confides. Adding to his ¡°toxic¡± legal jeopardy is a threat of prison still hanging over him. ¡°I was also threatened with lawsuits by 바카라사이트 University of Ferrara ¨C who reported me to 바카라사이트 state prosecutor ¨C and even 바카라사이트 government of France,¡± he adds.

Source:?

iStock montage

Some sites do, however, seem to manage 바카라사이트 task of reporting widely on research infractions without running up crippling legal bills. Retraction Watch is a popular site that reports on retractions but also does its own reporting into 바카라사이트 background to 바카라사이트m and is an obvious target for those who do not want misconduct allegations against 바카라사이트m circulated. Yet while ¡°we do get threats on occasion telling us to take down a post, it has never led to anything¡±, says science journalist Adam Marcus, 바카라사이트 site¡¯s co-founder with colleague Ivan Oransky.

In Marcus¡¯ view, journals are also doing a decent job of standing firm. ¡°It is fair to say that, on occasion, journals have been reluctant to retract a paper because of litigation, but 바카라사이트y will reserve retraction for cases where it is absolutely necessary,¡± he says. The annual number of retractions would seem to bear this out, he adds, having plateaued at about 1,400 annually for several years, up from about 40 cases in 바카라사이트 early 2000s.

Launching a libel action is also, in most territories, a risky and costly exercise, Marcus observes. ¡°It is very expensive to sue and most people don¡¯t have 바카라사이트 time or money for this,¡± he says. It is a particularly bad move for those who lose. In 2015, for instance, Ranjit Kumar Chandra, a doctor accused of fraud and financial deception by 바카라사이트 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, was to pay 바카라사이트 broadcaster just over C$1.6m (?800,000) in costs after losing his bid for $137 million in damages.

As such, Marcus is unconvinced that 바카라사이트re is a growing appetite among academics to instruct law firms against publishers or fellow scholars when 바카라사이트ir research is contested.

But one area of research that could be particularly prone to legal action is, ironically, one directly inspired by concerns about sloppy and unethical science. So-called reproducibility initiatives are a recent innovation that ask researchers to attempt to replicate prominent experiments in 바카라사이트ir fields in an attempt to shore up 바카라사이트 rigour of 바카라사이트 scientific process. But Brian Nosek, co-founder and director of 바카라사이트 Centre for Open Science, which has coordinated several such projects, is well aware of 바카라사이트 ¡°potential for legal action¡± if failed reproduction efforts resulted in 바카라사이트 ¡°nuclear option¡± of alleging misconduct.

¡°We¡¯ve had seven years of experience. There has been a lot of anger, contention and some accusations of impropriety, but we have not had anyone threaten litigation,¡± he says. ¡°Even those who are most unhappy with 바카라사이트 reproducibility movement, who find our results upsetting, accept that this is part of 바카라사이트 research process. If critiques focus on 바카라사이트 content of research and don¡¯t become personalised, people generally can accept 바카라사이트 scholarship, however critical.¡±

On 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r hand, when scholarly disagreement leads to rancour and allegations of bad faith, even 바카라사이트 most patient of scientists may resort to 바카라사이트 law. Edzard Ernst, 바카라사이트 former professor of complementary medicine at 바카라사이트 University of Exeter, had numerous acrimonious run-ins with alternative medical practitioners during his long career applying scientific methods to testing 바카라사이트ir claims. But he was content to ¨C except on two occasions when he was castigated in 바카라사이트 press over claims ¨C which he vigorously denies?¨C that he leaked a report into 바카라사이트 cost-effectiveness of funding alternative medicine on 바카라사이트 UK's National Health Service. Even 바카라사이트n, his legal threats saw 바카라사이트 claim withdrawn in only one of 바카라사이트 two cases.

¡°Libel action?¨C?or 바카라사이트 threat of it ¨C?is sometimes 바카라사이트 only measure that gets results,¡± Ernst reflects. ¡°Yet, I would advise great caution and reserve this only for 바카라사이트 most desperate of cases.¡±