Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Legislation on Research Misconduct: Rationales and Reflections—A Swedish Perspective

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Integrity of Scientific Research

Abstract

Prompted by the Macchiarini research fraud case, an Act on Research Misconduct was introduced in Sweden in January 2020. In accordance with international convention, it defines unlawful research misconduct as “…severe deviation from good research practice in the form of fabrication, falsification or plagiarism.” To qualify as severe, the misconduct must be either intentional or caused by serious neglect. Universities are obliged to report suspected cases for investigation by a newly established governmental agency. The Act does not include regulation of penalties or sanctions. The expected consequences of the Act and its limitations are discussed. The crucial roles of universities and scientific journals in the prevention of misconduct remain, and improved European legislation to protect whistleblowers is described. Future directions in the struggle against research misconduct include use of technical advances to detect data and image manipulation.

Information in this chapter was modified from the author’s Swedish popular science book—Kjell Asplund (2021) Fuskarna: Om Macchiarinis och andras svek mot vetenskapen (The frauds: On the betrayal of science by Macchiarini and others). Fri Tanke, Stockholm, Sweden

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Adam D (2019) The data detective. Nature 571:462–464

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. ALLEA (European Federation of Academies of Sciences and Humanities) The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2017). Revised edition. allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-2017.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2021

  3. Anonymous (2003) The ethical review act. onep.se/media/2348/the_ethical_review_act.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2021

    Google Scholar 

  4. Anonymous (2019) The Swedish criminal code. legislationline.org/download/id/8662/file/Sweden_criminal_code_am2020_en.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2021

  5. Anonymous (2020) Ökad trygghet för visselblåsare [Improved protection of whistleblowers, summary in English]. SOU 2020:38. regeringen.se/rattsliga-dokument/statens-offentliga-utredningar/2020/06/sou-202038/. Accessed 12 May 2021

    Google Scholar 

  6. Asplund K, Blom N, Johansson K, et al (2016) The Macchiarini case. Investigation of the synthetic trachea transplantations at Karolinska University Hospital. Summary in English. sll.se/globalassets/1.-halsa-och-vard/bilagor---nyhet/bilagor-nyheter-2016/the-macchiarini-case-summary-eng.pdf?_t_id=jn7cuiNjRit3scHO1EqPDA%3d%3d&_t_uuid=4fsLCHhJQcCQKsxlbS0bwQ&_t_q=macchiarini&_t_tags=language%3asv%2csiteid%3a8824540f-e7eb-44a0-94f3-c48a0b63798c%2candquerymatch&_t_hit.id=PublicWebv2_Cms_EPiSrvr_EpiDependencies_Document/94&_t_hit.pos=3. Accessed 12 May 2021

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bik EM, Casadevall A, Fang FC (2016) The prevalence of inappropriate image duplication in biomedical research publications. MBio 7(3):e00809–e00816

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Carlisle JB (2017) Data fabrication and other reasons for non-random sampling in 5087 randomised, controlled trials in anaesthetic and general medical journals. Anaesthesia 72:944–952

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Choe S-H (2009, October 26) Disgraced cloning expert convicted in South Korea. New York Times. nytimes.com/2006/05/12/health/12iht-korea.1725751.html. Accessed 12 May 2021

  10. Cyranoski D (2016, February 4) Artificial-windpipe pioneer under scrutiny again. Nature (News Article)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dr Geoff (2017) Scott S Reuben – anesthesiologist who went to prison for faking pain control trials. drgeoffnutrition.wordpress.com/2017/11/19/scott-s-reuben-anesthesiologist-who-went-to-prison-for-faking-pain-control-trials/. Accessed 12 May 2021

  12. Ekbom A, Helgesen G, Lunde T, et al (2006) Report by the investigation commission. Summary in English. web.archive.org/web/20060920200752/rikshospitalet.no/content/res_bibl/6633.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2021

  13. European Union Directive (EU) 2019/1937. //eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32019L1937&from=EN. Accessed 12 May 2021

  14. Fountain H (2014, November 24) Leading surgeon is accused of misconduct in experimental transplant operations. New York Times. nytimes.com/2014/11/25/world/leading-surgeon-is-accused-of-misconduct-in-experimental-transplant-operations.html. Accessed 12 May 2021

  15. Hedin U-C, Månsson S-A (2008) Repressalier mot kritiker i offentliga organisationer [Reprisals against critics in public organizations]. Summary in English. Socialvetenskaplig Tidskrift 3–4:276–294

    Google Scholar 

  16. Jungebluth P, Alici E, Baiguera S et al (2011) Tracheobronchial transplantation with a stem-cell-seeded bioartificial nanocomposite: a proof-of-concept study (Retracted). Lancet 378:1997–2004

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Karolinska Institute (2016) External inquiry finds Paolo Macchiarini guilty of misconduct. news.ki.se/external-inquiry-finds-paolo-macchiarini-guilty-of-misconduct. Accessed 12 May 2021

  18. Kintisch E (2006, June 28) Poehlman sentenced to 1 year in prison. Science Magazine

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lennane J (2012) What happens to whistleblowers, and why. Social Med 6:249–258

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lynøe N, Lambertz G (2013) Gör forskningsfusk straffbart! [ Make research fraud punishable] Läkartidningen 110:CDAI

    Google Scholar 

  21. Marks DF (2019) The Hans Eysenck affair: time to correct the scientific record. J Health Psychol 24:409–420

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mehra MR, Desai SS, Ruschitzka F et al (2020a) RETRACTED: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis. Lancet S0140–6736:31180–31186

    Google Scholar 

  23. Mehra MR, Desai SS, Kuy SR et al (2020b) Cardiovascular disease, drug therapy, and mortality in Covid-19 (retracted). N Engl J Med 382(25):e102

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Committee on Responsible Science (2017) Fostering integrity in research. National Academies Press, Washington DC

    Book  Google Scholar 

  25. Pelosi AJ (2019) Personality and fatal diseases: revisiting a scientific scandal. J Health Psychol 24:421–439

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Retraction Watch (2021) The Retraction Watch leaderboard. retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-leaderboard/. Accessed 12 May 2021

  27. Shen H (2020) Meet this super-spotter of duplicated images in science papers. Nature 581:132–136

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Smith R, Brown AJ (2008) The good, the bad and the ugly: whistleblowing outcomes. In: Brown AJ (ed) Whistleblowing in the Australian Public Sector. Australian National University, Canberra, pp 109–136

    Google Scholar 

  29. Swedish Council for Higher Education (2019) Act on responsibility for good research practice and the examination of research misconduct (2019:504). uhr.se/en/start/laws-and-regulations/Laws-and-regulations/act-on-responsibility-for-good-research-practice/. Accessed 12 May 2021

    Google Scholar 

  30. Swedish Research Council. The Swedish Research Barometer (2019) The Swedish research system in international comparison [Summary in English]. vr.se/english/analysis/swedish-research-in-figures.html. Accessed 12 May 2021

    Google Scholar 

  31. US Department of Health & Human Services (2021) The Office of Research Integrity. ori.hhs.gov/. Accessed 12 May 2021

  32. Williams KM, Nathanson C, Paulhus DL (2010) Identifying and profiling scholastic cheaters: their personality, cognitive ability, and motivation. J Exp Psychol Appl 16:293–307

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden

    Kjell Asplund

Authors
  1. Kjell Asplund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Hospital das Clinicas, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

    Joel Faintuch

  2. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center & Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Salomão Faintuch

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Asplund, K. (2022). Legislation on Research Misconduct: Rationales and Reflections—A Swedish Perspective. In: Faintuch, J., Faintuch, S. (eds) Integrity of Scientific Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99680-2_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99680-2_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-99679-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-99680-2

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation