Signaling the trustworthiness of science should not be a substitute for direct action against research misconduct

The paper “Signaling the trustworthiness of science,” by Jamieson et al. (1), offers suggestions as to what could be done by scientists to reassure “other scientists and, perhaps more importantly, the public that [the] norms [of science] are being upheld.” They believe such trust has been undermined by “instances of misconduct or fraud…failures to replicate key findings…and a rise in the number of retractions.”

Undoubtedly, trust in science can be undermined to some degree by such reports in the public media; however, the authors deceive themselves if they believe that educating the public as to the details of good research practices would in any way diminish its reactions to such reports.

We doubt that such research misconduct reports diminish public confidence and scientists. The public reaction is likely to be more realistic than these leaders of science believe. Indeed, it is much more likely that the public attributes a published fraudulent report to a fraudulent scientist, not to untrustworthy science.

Such reports are produced by individuals such as the trainee, fearful that the failure to be published will negate any chance for an academic appointment; the faculty member who is convinced that another publication is needed to ensure funding of their laboratories; and the psychopath, absent a conscience, whose career is based on “important” findings (1). These are the problems that cry out for remedies. Educating the public of the high standards of science and scientists will not diminish the outrage at the next report of fraudulent research.

When then will these leaders of the scientific community finally direct their talents and energy to the culprit per se, research misconduct, and its perpetrators (2)?