The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science

The Great Betrayal describes many cases of research fraud. Why is the academic establishment reluctant to admit that fraud is a major problem? Possibly because the most influential academics obtained their seniority from research publications rather than by their teaching or practical skills. To suggest that their positions were attained in a corrupt system reduces their status.

Figure 1.

Horace Freeland Judson

Harcourt, $28, pp 480 ISBN 0 15 100877 9 www.HarcourtBooks.com

Rating: ★★

As with other forms of clandestine dishonesty we can be certain that for every case of research fraud that is exposed others go undetected. In the cleverest financial or art frauds the victims do not even know they were duped. Ultimately it is the taxpayers who pick up the bill for research fraud and are its victims, but patients suffer directly when medical research is falsified.

Most cases of research fraud collated by Judson have been described before, but in many cases he has new information from interviews with the people involved. Therein lies a problem. Have people told him the truth—or what they want history to record?

In the cases where I have direct knowledge there are some inaccuracies. Judson states: “The case of Robert Slutsky, in itself, was comparatively uncomplicated and was handled expeditiously and effectively.” Slutsky was not exposed until 1985, when he resigned as a cardiological radiologist at the University of California at San Diego Medical School, although many people knew much earlier that he falsified his research. I have described how, in 1982 when I visited friends in San Diego and gave a talk to cardiologists, medical staff working in many departments knew of Slutsky's frauds. The wife of a doctor who worked with him told me that she was concerned that her husband's reputation would suffer when Slutsky was exposed (Slutsky often persuaded scientific colleagues to add their names to his articles). Slutsky did not attempt to hide his dishonesty. He told me that he had always known that the work of John Darsee, a former researcher at the department of cardiology, Harvard, was suspect, because Darsee was the only person who had published more than him. Judson also describes Darsee's fraudulent publications, which were eventually exposed by the US Institutes of Health. Darsee's dishonesty was also known to colleagues and the departmental head long before he was exposed.

We cannot be complacent, because some cases of research fraud in Britain have been dealt with only a decade after they became common knowledge.

I am afraid that research fraud often flourishes where there is already a climate of dishonesty

Judson cites the case of Malcolm Pearce at St George's Hospital, London, as an example of an institution handling allegations speedily and well. Pearce, a gynaecologist, was found to have fabricated scientific data in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, and was struck off the medical register. In fact the hospital authorities took action only after a reporter from the Daily Mail and investigative journalists from the BBC television programme Horizon began to interview staff and indicated their intention to make the allegations public.

If, in the cases that I know about, things are different from the way Judson reports them, can I rely on his other sources?

Judson says, “Fabricators and falsifiers in the sciences originate their frauds alone. One rarely finds conspiracies to commit them.” I know of cases where frauds were instigated by the department head, and junior researchers were pressed into cooperation. Judson also believes that junior researchers slip by default into research fraud because of inadequate supervision or mentoring. A doctor that I reported to the General Medical Council was advised by a senior colleague of tricks to get away with dishonesty. A junior doctor who received the same advice from the consultant told me. I am afraid that research fraud often flourishes where there is already a climate of dishonesty.

Judson only briefly describes what may be the most common form of research misconduct: failure to publish results. Many cases have been documented in which drug companies suppressed research findings for the sake of company profits. Journal editors distort the scientific record because they are reluctant to publish studies that failed to replicate research, and they are unwilling to retract flawed and dishonest reports.

Judson paints a rosier picture of the mechanisms for dealing with research fraud than I recognise. In the main he describes ways of dealing with allegations of misconduct in the United States. However, in the case of David Baltimore and Imanishi-Kari, to which Judson devotes a chapter of over 60 pages, one is left uncertain about who was guilty of what. Though ahead of the rest of the world it is clear that US mechanisms for dealing with research fraud are inadequate. British authorities lag far behind, and some countries have no mechanisms. Certainly the legal systems in some countries present obstacles to investigations. The British libel laws are major hurdles.

Judson believes that the era of internet publication will do much to prevent research fraud. It will allow open or public peer review; but will that ensure that the original data were genuine? How do we work out what is the definitive paper, when data interpretation has been amended by anyone who cares to get involved, whether or not they have expertise in that subject? Internet and electronic banking have increased the risk of major financial fraud, assisted laundering of money from drug dealing, and increased credit card fraud. The internet facilitates child pornography. The lack of regulation on the internet allows people to get medical advice and prescription drugs from quacks. The internet has increased plagiarism by students. I fear that publication of research on the internet will not safeguard the integrity of scientific research.