Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 177–184 | Cite as

Scientific misconduct: a perspective from India

  • Husain Sabir
  • Subhash Kumbhare
  • Amit Parate
  • Rajesh Kumar
  • Suroopa Das
Review Article

Abstract

Misconduct in medical science research is an unfortunate reality. Science, for the most part, operates on the basis of trust. Researchers are expected to carry out their work and report their findings honestly. But, sadly, that is not how science always gets done. Reports keep surfacing from various countries about work being plagiarised, results which were doctored and data fabricated. Scientific misconduct is scourge afflicting the field of science, unfortunately with little impact in developing countries like India especially in health care services. A recent survey and a meta-analysis suggest that the few cases that do float up represents only tip of a large iceberg. This paper therefore highlights reasons for misconduct with steps that can be taken to reduce misconduct. Also the paper throws light on Indian scenario in relation to misconduct.

Keywords

Fabrication Falsification Plagiarism 

References

  1. Bebeau, M.J., and E.L. Davis. 1996. Survey of ethical issues in dental research. Journal of Dental Research 75(2): 845–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bhan, A., P. Desikan, S. Swarnalakshmi, and S.P. Kalantri. 2010. Process, pitfalls and probity: Sharing experiences on setting up and running ethics committees in India. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics 7(1): 48–51.Google Scholar
  3. Claxton, L.D. 2005. Scientific authorship. Part 1. A window into scientific fraud? Mutation Research 589: 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. D’Souza, D.H. 2010. Delay in publications: New authors and editorial misconduct. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics 7(3): 194–195.Google Scholar
  5. Dhingra, D., and D. Mishra. 2014. Publication misconduct among medical professionals in India. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics 11(2): 104–107.Google Scholar
  6. Faggion Jr, C.M. 2011. Improving transparency in dental research by making the raw data available. Journal Canadian Dental Association 77: 122.Google Scholar
  7. Gupta, A. 2013. Fraud and misconduct in clinical research: A concern. Perspectives in Clinical Research 4(2): 144–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kekre, N.S. 2012. Scientific misconduct—Why we must be careful. Indian Journal of Urology 28(3): 247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Liu, Shi V. 2006. What drives scientists crazy and causes them to misconduct? The origin and evolution of modern scientific misconduct. Scientific Ethics 1(1): 53–58.Google Scholar
  10. Luther, Friedy. 2008. Publication ethics and scientific misconduct: The role of authors. Journal of Orthodontics 35: 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Luther, F. 2010. Scientific misconduct: Tip of an iceberg or the elephant in the room? Journal of Dental Research 89(12): 1364–1367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Martinson, Brian C., Melissa S. Anderson, and Raymond De Vries. 2005. Scientists behaving badly. Nature 435:737–738.Google Scholar
  13. National Science Foundation. Definition of research misconduct. http://www.nsf.gov/oig/remisreg.pdf.
  14. Rathod, S.D. 2010. Combating plagiarism: A shared responsibility. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics 7(3): 173–175.Google Scholar
  15. Satyanarayana, K. 2010. Plagiarism: A scourge afflicting the Indian science. Indian Journal of Medical Research 131: 373–376.Google Scholar
  16. Scott-Lichter D and the Editorial Policy Committee, Council of Science Editors. 2009. CSE’s White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications, 2009 Update. Reston, Va.Google Scholar
  17. Singh, A., and B. Purohit. 2011. Ethical issues in scientific research in developing countries. Online Journal of Health Ethics, 7(1). Retrieved from http://aquila.usm.edu/ojhe/vol7/iss1/3.
  18. Smith, Richard. 2006. Research misconduct: The poisoning of the well. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 99: 232–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Smith, A.J. 2008. Research integrity and scientific misconduct. Journal of Dental Research 87(3): 197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Smith, R, and T. Koehlmoos. 2013. Misconduct around the globe. The scientist. http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/35676/title/Misconduct-Around-the-Globe/.
  21. Titus, S.L., J.A. Wells, and L.J. Rhoades. 2008a. Repairing research integrity. Nature 453(7198): 980–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Titus, S.L., J.A. Wells, and L.J. Rhoades. 2008b. Repairing research integrity. Nature 453: 980–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. United States Department of Health and Human Services. Office of Research Integrity. ORI Policy on Plagiarism. 2008. http://ori.dhhs.gov/policies/plagiarism.shtml.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Husain Sabir
    • 1
  • Subhash Kumbhare
    • 1
  • Amit Parate
    • 1
  • Rajesh Kumar
    • 2
  • Suroopa Das
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Oral Medicine and RadiologyGovernment Dental College and HospitalNagpurIndia
  2. 2.Department of PeriodonticsSri Aurobindo College of DentistryIndoreIndia
  3. 3.Department of Conservative Dentistry and EndodonticsGovernment Dental College and HospitalNagpurIndia

Personalised recommendations