» Articles » PMID: 28971354

Scientists Still Behaving Badly? A Survey Within Industry and Universities

Overview
Journal Sci Eng Ethics
Date 2017 Oct 4
PMID 28971354
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Little is known about research misconduct within industry and how it compares to universities, even though a lot of biomedical research is performed by-or in collaboration with-commercial entities. Therefore, we sent an e-mail invitation to participate in an anonymous computer-based survey to all university researchers having received a biomedical research grant or scholarship from one of the two national academic research funders of Belgium between 2010 and 2014, and to researchers working in large biomedical companies or spin-offs in Belgium. The validated survey included questions about various types of research misconduct committed by respondents themselves and observed among their colleagues in the last three years. Prevalences of misconduct were compared between university and industry respondents using binary logistic regression models, with adjustments for relevant personal characteristics, and with significance being accepted for p < 0.01. The survey was sent to 1766 people within universities and an estimated 255 people from industry. Response rates were 43 (767/1766) and 48% (123/255), and usable information was available for 617 and 100 respondents, respectively. In general, research misconduct was less likely to be reported by industry respondents compared to university respondents. Significant differences were apparent for one admitted action (gift authorship) and three observed actions (plagiarism, gift authorship, and circumventing animal-subjects research requirements), always with lower prevalences for industry compared to universities, except for plagiarism. This survey, based on anonymous self-report, shows that research misconduct occurs to a substantial degree among biomedical researchers from both industry and universities.

Citing Articles

Fostering research integrity in sub-Saharan Africa: challenges, opportunities, and recommendations.

Bain L, Tchuisseu-Kwangoua L, Adeagbo O, Nkfusai N, Amu H, Saah F Pan Afr Med J. 2023; 43:182.

PMID: 36923394 PMC: 10008683. DOI: 10.11604/pamj.2022.43.182.37804.


"The person in power told me to"-European PhD students' perspectives on guest authorship and good authorship practice.

Goddiksen M, Johansen M, Armond A, Clavien C, Hogan L, Kovacs N PLoS One. 2023; 18(1):e0280018.

PMID: 36634045 PMC: 9836317. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280018.


Perceptions of plagiarism by biomedical researchers: an online survey in Europe and China.

Yi N, Nemery B, Dierickx K BMC Med Ethics. 2020; 21(1):44.

PMID: 32487190 PMC: 7268401. DOI: 10.1186/s12910-020-00473-7.


Scientific honesty and publicly shared lab notebooks: Sharing lab notebooks along with publication would increase transparency and help to improve honesty when reporting results.

van Steensel B EMBO Rep. 2018; 19(10).

PMID: 30158143 PMC: 6172453. DOI: 10.15252/embr.201846866.


Differing Perceptions Concerning Research Integrity Between Universities and Industry: A Qualitative Study.

Godecharle S, Nemery B, Dierickx K Sci Eng Ethics. 2017; 24(5):1421-1436.

PMID: 28913604 DOI: 10.1007/s11948-017-9965-4.

References
1.
Polit D, Tatano Beck C, Owen S . Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2007; 30(4):459-67. DOI: 10.1002/nur.20199. View

2.
Wood A, White I, Royston P . How should variable selection be performed with multiply imputed data?. Stat Med. 2008; 27(17):3227-46. DOI: 10.1002/sim.3177. View

3.
Martinson B, Anderson M, De Vries R . Scientists behaving badly. Nature. 2005; 435(7043):737-8. DOI: 10.1038/435737a. View

4.
Stroebe W, Postmes T, Spears R . Scientific Misconduct and the Myth of Self-Correction in Science. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015; 7(6):670-88. DOI: 10.1177/1745691612460687. View

5.
van Buuren S . Multiple imputation of discrete and continuous data by fully conditional specification. Stat Methods Med Res. 2007; 16(3):219-42. DOI: 10.1177/0962280206074463. View