Scientific dishonesty—a nationwide survey of doctoral students in Norway

BMC Medical Ethics

Søren Holm¹  Anne Ingeborg Myhr³  Bjørn Hofmann² 

[1]Centre for Social Ethics and Policy, School of Law, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

[2]Department for Health, Technology and Social Sciences, University College of Gjøvik, Gjøvik, Norway

[3]Genøk-Centre for Biosafety, The Science Park, Tromsø and Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Tromsø, Tromso, Norway

关键词: Misconduct;    Plagiarism;    Falsification;    Fabrication;    Dishonesty;   

Others  :  799992
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6939-14-3

 received in 2012-09-24, accepted in 2012-12-31,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

The knowledge of scientific dishonesty is scarce and heterogeneous. Therefore this study investigates the experiences with and the attitudes towards various forms of scientific dishonesty among PhD-students at the medical faculties of all Norwegian universities.

Method

Anonymous questionnaire distributed to all post graduate students attending introductory PhD-courses at all medical faculties in Norway in 2010/2011. Descriptive statistics.

Results

189 of 262 questionnaires were returned (72.1%). 65% of the respondents had not, during the last year, heard or read about researchers who committed scientific dishonesty. One respondent had experienced pressure to fabricate and to falsify data, and one had experienced pressure to plagiarize data. On average 60% of the respondents were uncertain whether their department had a written policy concerning scientific conduct. About 11% of the respondents had experienced unethical pressure concerning the order of authors during the last 12 months. 10% did not find it inappropriate to report experimental data without having conducted the experiment and 38% did not find it inappropriate to try a variety of different methods of analysis to find a statistically significant result. 13% agreed that it is acceptable to selectively omit contradictory results to expedite publication and 10% found it acceptable to falsify or fabricate data to expedite publication, if they were confident of their findings. 79% agreed that they would be willing to report misconduct to a responsible official.

Conclusion

Although there is less scientific dishonesty reported in Norway than in other countries, dishonesty is not unknown to doctoral students. Some forms of scientific misconduct are considered to be acceptable by a significant minority. There was little awareness of relevant policies for scientific conduct, but a high level of willingness to report misconduct.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Hofmann et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine: Responsible science: ensuring the integrity of the research process, vol 1. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 1992.
• [2]Buzzelli DE: The definition of misconduct in science: a view from NSF. Science 1993, 259:584-585. 647–48
• [3]Nilstun T, Löfmark R, Lundqvist A: Scientific dishonesty - questionnaire to doctoral students in Sweden. J Med Ethics 2010, 36(5):315-318.
• [4]National Research Council: On being a scientist: a guide to responsible conduct in research. 3rd edition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2009.
• [5]Gerber P: What can we learn from the Hwang and Sudbø affairs? Med J Aust 2006, 184(12):632-635.
• [6]Martinson BC, Anderson MS, de Vries R: Scientists behaving badly. Nature 2005, 435(7043):737-738.
• [7]Anderson MS, Martinson BC, De Vries R: Normative dissonance in science: results from a national survey of U.S. Scientists. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2007, 2(4):3-14.
• [8]White C: Suspected research fraud: difficulties of getting at the truth. BMJ 2005, 331:288.
• [9]Kalichman MW: Surveys as a tool for training in scientific integrity. In Scientific integrity: text and cases in responsible conduct of research. Edited by Macrina FL. Washington DC: ASM Press; 2005:297-320.
• [10]Marcovitch H: Misconduct by researchers and authors. Gac Sanit 2007, 21(6):492-499.
• [11]Fanelli D: How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One 2009, 4(5):e5738.
• [12]Tavare A: Managing research misconduct: is anyone getting it right. BMJ 2011, 343:d8212.
• [13]Schroter S, Godlee F, Wager E, et al.: BMJ’s misconduct survey. 2012. (Accessed 21.01.2012) http://press.psprings.co.uk/bmj/january/misconductsurvey.pdf webcite
• [14]Riis P: Scientific dishonesty: European reflections. J Clin Pathol 2001, 54:4-6.
• [15]Anderson MS, Horn AS, Risbey KR, et al.: What do mentoring and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with scientists’ misbehavior? Findings from a National Survey of NIH-funded scientists. Acad Med 2007, 82(9):853-860.
• [16]Ryan G, Bonanno H, Krass I, et al.: Undergraduate and postgraduate pharmacy students’ perceptions of plagiarism and academic honesty. Am J Pharm Educ 2009, 73(6):105.
• [17]Martinson BC, Crain AL, De Vries R, et al.: The importance of organizational justice in ensuring research integrity. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2010, 5(3):67-83.
• [18]Rennie SC, Crosby JR: Are “tomorrow’s doctors” honest? Questionnaire study exploring medical students’ attitudes and reported behaviour on academic misconduct. BMJ 2001, 322(7281):274-275.
• [19]Rennie SC, Rudland JR: Differences in medical students’ attitudes to academic misconduct and reported behaviour across the years - a questionnaire study. J Med Ethics 2003, 29(2):97-102.
• [20]Kukolja Taradi S, Taradi M, Knežević T, et al.: Students come to medical schools prepared to cheat: a multi-campus investigation. J Med Ethics 2010, 36(11):666-670.
• [21]Heitman E, Olsen CH, Anestidou L, et al.: New graduate students’ baseline knowledge of the responsible conduct of research. Acad Med 2007, 82(9):838-845.
• [22]Elgesem D, Jåsund K, Kaiser M: Fusk i forskningen. En studie av uredelighet og diskutable forskning ved norske universiteter. [Fraud in research. A study of dishonesty and questionable research at Norwegian universities]. Oslo: De nasjonale forskningsetiske komiteer; 1997.
• [23]Nylenna M, Andersen D, Dahlquist G, et al.: Handling of scientific dishonesty in the Nordic countries. Lancet 1999, 354:57-61.
• [24]Nilsson A: Åtgärder mot fusk i USA och Tyskland: Tydliga regler och kännbara påföljder. [Measures against fraud in USA and Germany: Plain rules and noticeable sanctions]. En tidning från Vetenskapsrådet om forskningsfinansiering, forskningspolitiska frågor och forskningsinformation; 2006:4. http://forska.vr.se/ webcite (Accessed 01.12.2011)
• [25]Persson A: Vetenskapens egen kontroll av forskningens etiska standard är otillräcklig [Scientists’ own control of ethical standard in research is insufficient]. Lakartidningen 2007, 104:2244-2247.
• [26]Kalichman MW, Friedman PJ: A pilot study of biomedical trainees’ perceptions concerning research ethics. Acad Med 1992, 67:769-775.
• [27]Editor: Face up to fraud. Nature 2012, 481(7381):237-238.
• [28]Bosch X: Scientific fraud: Europe must address research misconduct. Nature 2011, 480:181.
• [29]Bekkelund SI, Hegstad A-C, Førde OH: Uredeighet i medisinsk og helsefaglig forskning i Norge [Scientific dishonesty in medical research in Norway]. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 1995, 115:3148-3151.
• [30]Hals A, Jacobsen G: Uredelighet i medisinsk forskning. En spørreundersøkelse blant prosjektledere i helseregion 4 [Dishonesty in medical research. A questionnaire study among project administrators in Health Region 4]. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 1993, 113(25):3149-3152.
• [31]Norwegian Association of Higher Education Institutions: Dishonesty and irregularities in the higher education sector. A report including proposals for preventive measures. Report of the working group appointed by the Norwegian Association of Higher Education Institutions. Oslo: Norwegian Association of Higher Education Institutions; 2009.
• [32]Gustavsson B, Hermerén G, Petersson B: Vad är god forskningssed? Synpunkter, riktlinjer och exempel. [What is ethical in research? Views, guidelines and examples]. Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet; 2004.
• [33]Babu TA, Joseph NM, Sharmila V: Academic dishonesty among undergraduates from private medical schools in India. Are we on the right track? Med Teach 2011, 33(9):759-761.
• [34]Baldwin DC Jr, Daugherty SR, Rowley BD, et al.: Cheating in medical school: a survey of second-year students at 31 schools. Acad Med 1996, 71(3):267-273.
• [35]Marcoux HE: Kansas State University faculty perspective, opinions, and practices concerning undergraduate student academic dishonesty and moral development. Manhattan KA: Kansas State University; 2002.
• [36]Pryor ER, Habermann B, Broome ME: Scientific misconduct from the perspective of research coordinators: a national survey. J Med Ethics 2007, 33:365-369.
• [37]Alfredo K, Hart H: The university and the responsible conduct of research: who is responsible for what? Sci Eng Ethics 2011, 17(3):447-457.
• [38]Hofmann B, Paulsen JE, Nortvedt P: Det er forskjell på forskning og kopiering. [There is a difference between research and copying]. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 2008, 128(13):1544.
• [39]Hren D, Vujaklija A, Ivanisevic R, Knezevic J, Marusic M, Marusic A: Students’ moral reasoning, Machiavellianism and socially desirable responding: implications for teaching ethics and research integrity. Med Educ 2006, 40:269-277.
• [40]Pimple KD: Six domains of research ethics. A heuristic framework for the responsible conduct of research. Sci Eng Ethics 2002, 8:191-205.