Misconduct versus Honest Error and Scientific Disagreement

Researchers sometimes mistakenly accuse their peers of misconduct. It is important to distinguish between misconduct and honest error or a difference of scientific opinion to prevent unnecessary and time-consuming misconduct proceedings, protect scientists from harm, and avoid deterring researchers from using novel methods or proposing controversial hypotheses. While it is obvious to many researchers that misconduct is different from a scientific disagreement or simply an inadvertent mistake in methods, analysis or misinterpretation of data, applying this distinction to real cases is sometimes not easy. Because the line between misconduct and honest error or a scientific dispute is often unclear, research organizations and institutions should distinguish between misconduct and honest error and scientific disagreement in their policies and practices. These distinctions should also be explained during educational sessions on the responsible conduct of research and in the mentoring process. When researchers wrongfully accuse their peers of misconduct, it is important to help them understand the distinction between misconduct and honest error and differences of scientific judgment or opinion, pinpoint the source of disagreement, and identify the relevant scientific norms. They can be encouraged to settle the dispute through collegial discussion and dialogue, rather than a misconduct allegation.

[1]  Sandeep K. Gupta,et al.  Intention-to-treat concept: A review , 2011, Perspectives in clinical research.

[2]  S. Abramson Differing opinion, not misconduct , 2011, Nature.

[3]  E. Marris Statistics spark dismissal suit , 2010, Nature.

[4]  Kimberly A. Pollard,et al.  Changing philosophies and tools for statistical inferences in behavioral ecology , 2009 .

[5]  Catherine D DeAngelis,et al.  Impugning the integrity of medical science: the adverse effects of industry influence. , 2008, JAMA.

[6]  R. Kronmal,et al.  Reporting mortality findings in trials of rofecoxib for Alzheimer disease or cognitive impairment: a case study based on documents from rofecoxib litigation. , 2008, JAMA.

[7]  Joshua S Yuan,et al.  Statistical methods for efficiency adjusted real‐time PCR quantification , 2008, Biotechnology journal.

[8]  Feng Chen,et al.  Statistical analysis of real-time PCR data , 2006, BMC Bioinformatics.

[9]  David B. Resnik,et al.  From Baltimore to Bell Labs: Reflections on Two Decades of Debate about Scientific Misconduct , 2003, Accountability in research.

[10]  G. Gamow BOOKS: Thirty Years That Shook Physics: The Story of Quantum Theory , 1967 .

[11]  Frederick J. Gilman,et al.  Thirty Years That Shook Physics: The Story of Quantum Theory , 1966 .

[12]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .

[13]  M. Gistrak Responsible science. , 2000, American Journal of Clinical Pathology.

[14]  L W Bivens,et al.  Responsible conduct of research. , 1991, ASHA.

[15]  Karl E. Peace,et al.  Intention to treat in clinical trials , 1989 .