Scientists Still Behaving Badly? A Survey Within Industry and Universities

  • Simon Godecharle
  • Steffen Fieuws
  • Ben Nemery
  • Kris Dierickx
Original Paper

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.

Keywords

Research integrity Research misconduct Industry Universities 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by Research Foundation—Flanders (Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek–Vlaanderen) Ph.D. Fellowship: 11U8214 N. We thank Dr. de Vries one of the authors of the original USA survey11 for helping in the process of updating and processing.

Funding

This research was funded by Research Foundation—Flanders (Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek–Vlaanderen), Ph.D. Fellowship: 11U8214 N.

Author Contribution

BN and KD contributed to the study design, the elaboration of the manuscript, and supervised the research. Statistical analyses were performed by SF. SG contacted the organizations involved, performed the validation of the survey and the pilot study, performed the study and wrote the first and successive drafts of the manuscript. All authors approved the final version.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11948_2017_9957_MOESM1_ESM.docx (29 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 28 kb)
11948_2017_9957_MOESM2_ESM.docx (29 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 29 kb)

References

  1. Anderson, M. S., Horn, A. S., Risbey, K. R., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007). What do mentoring and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with scientists’ misbehavior? Findings from a National Survey of NIH-funded scientists. Academic Medicine, 82, 853–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. BrusselsLifetech: http://lifetechbrussels.com/.
  3. DeAngelis, C. D., & Fontanarosa, P. B. (2008). Impugning the integrity of medical science: The adverse effects of industry influence. JAMA, 299, 1833–1835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE, 4, e5738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique (FNRS): http://www.frs-fnrs.be/.
  6. Godecharle, S., Nemery, B., & Dierickx, K. (2013a). Guidance on research integrity: No union in Europe. Lancet, 381, 1097–1098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Godecharle, S., Nemery, B., & Dierickx, K. (2013b). Integrity training: Conflicting practices. Science, 340, 1403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Godecharle, S., Nemery, B., & Dierickx, K. (2014). Heterogeneity in European research integrity guidance: Relying on values or norms? JERHRE, 9, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goldacre, B. (2012). Bad pharma: how drug companies mislead doctors and harm patients. London: Harper Collins UK.Google Scholar
  10. Hvistendahl, M. (2013). Corruption and research fraud send big chill through big pharma in China. Science, 341, 445–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kornfeld, D. (2012). Perspective: Research misconduct: The search for a remedy. Academic Medicine, 87, 877–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Krimsky, S. (2004). Science in the private interest. has the lure of profits corrupted biomedical research?. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Lexchin, J., Bero, L. A., Djulbegovic, B., & Clark, O. (2003). Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: Systematic review. BMJ, 326, 1167–1170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & De Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435, 737–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Polit, D. F., Beck, C. T., & Owen, S. V. (2007). Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 30, 459–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Prinz, F., Schlange, T., & Asadullah, K. (2011). Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nature reviews Drug discovery, 10, 712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pupovac, V., & Fanelli, D. (2015). Scientists admitting to plagiarism: A meta-analysis of surveys. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(5), 1331–1352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Research Foundation—Flanders (FWO): http://www.fwo.be/en/.
  19. Rosenbaum, L. (2015a). Conflicts of Interest: Reconnecting the Dots—Reinterpreting Industry-Physician Relations. New England Journal of Medicine, 372, 1860–1864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rosenbaum, L. (2015b). Conflicts of interest: beyond moral outrage—Weighing the trade-offs of COI regulation. New England Journal of Medicine, 372, 2064–2068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rubin, D. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York: John Wiley and Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Smith, R. (2005). Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies. PLoS Medicine, 2, e138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stossel, T. P. (2005). Regulating academic—Industrial research relationships—Solving problems or stifling progress. New England Journal of Medicine, 353, 1060–1065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stroebe, W., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2012). Scientific misconduct and the myth of self-correction in science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 670–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tavare, A. (2012). Scientific misconduct is worryingly prevalent in the UK, shows BMJ survey. BMJ, 344, e377. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Titus, S. L., Wells, J. A., & Rhoades, L. J. (2008). Repairing research integrity. Nature, 453, 980–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Van Buuren, S. (2007). multiple imputation of discrete and continuous data by fully conditional specification. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 16, 219–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Watts, L. L., et al. (2016). Are ethics training programs improving? A meta-analytic review of past and present ethics instruction in the sciences. Ethics & Behavior, 27, 351–384. doi: 10.1080/10508422.2016.1182025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wood, A. M., White, I. R., & Royston, P. (2008). How should variable selection be performed with multiply imputed data? Statistics in Medicine, 27, 3227–3246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simon Godecharle
    • 1
  • Steffen Fieuws
    • 2
  • Ben Nemery
    • 3
  • Kris Dierickx
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary CareUniversity of LeuvenLouvainBelgium
  2. 2.Leuven Biostatistics and Statistical Bioinformatics Centre (L-BioStat), Department of Public Health and Primary CareUniversity of LeuvenLouvainBelgium
  3. 3.Centre for Environment and Health, Department of Public Health and Primary CareUniversity of LeuvenLouvainBelgium

Personalised recommendations