Britain's failure to tackle research misconduct

Editor—Lock warns the medical community about its lack of action in handling research misconduct.¹ We disagree that Britain lags behind the rest of the world and think that Lock should be proud of the achievements of the Anglo-Saxon countries. Fewer than 10, mostly small, countries have a national body for investigating misconduct and fraud in science, and few countries have open discussions under the auspices of professional organisations such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Eastern and southern Europe, Latin America, and Asia have no mechanisms for handling fraud properly.

If 23 years have not been sufficient for Britain to move on, will countries such as France have to wait until 2020 or 2050 to see improvement? A series of high profile cases that exposed fabrications of data in the late 1970s and early '80s in the United States resulted in the Health Research Institution Act 1985, which required institutions to establish procedures for addressing scientific misconduct.² However, the situation in the United States is still far from satisfactory. Establishing standards, recommendations, and processes for investigating research misconduct takes time as so many interests are challenged. Professional organisations must be well organised and governments supportive.

Lock says that a scandal and a charismatic leader are needed before progress can be made. But must we wait to see a major scandal in the public domain in most countries? Will a scandal be sufficient in countries where misconduct is discussed and handled behind closed doors? And one charismatic opinion leader per country is not enough.