The Office of Research Integrity (ORI), part of the US Public Health Service (PHS), serves an indispensible function: the identification and punishment of wrongdoers. A pioneer in the fight—and it is a fight—to retain honesty in scientific research, ORI continues to set standards for others around the world to follow. For the sake of research, researchers, and the wider community, it is essential that science's house is kept in order; we owe a debt of gratitude to ORI for the work that it does.

However, the system has a serious problem. Offenders are suffering far harsher penalties than intended.

As reported in a feature by Deputy Editor Alison McCook on page 28, a debarment from receiving federal funds for 3 years can effectively turn into a life sentence for researchers, permanently shutting down opportunities and eliminating career advancement, according to those who have experienced it first-hand. Many of those found guilty end up leaving research altogether, either by choice or, very likely, through lack of opportunity. But even then, the stain of guilt can pursue them through every aspect of their life, professional and personal.

This is surely not the intention. Any system of justice worthy of the name must mete out the applicable punishment alongside opportunities for rehabilitation and measures of crime prevention.

The current ORI procedure for the investigation of fraud seems fair. And the range of penalties for the guilty look, if anything, too lenient. They generally involve self-exclusion from advising PHS, say on a peer-review committee, and avoiding federal funding, both for a finite period of time.

For the sake of fairness, these sentences must be implemented precisely as intended. This means that at the end of the exclusion period, researchers should be able to participate again as full members of the scientific community. But they can't.

Misconduct findings against a researcher appear on the Web—indeed, in multiple places on the Web. And the omnipresence of the Web search means that reprimands are being dragged up again and again and again. However minor the misdemeanor, the researcher's reputation is permanently tarnished, and his or her career is invariably ruined, just as surely as if the punishment were a lifetime ban. 

Both the NIH Guide and The Federal Register publish findings of scientific misconduct, and are archived online. As long as this continues, the problem will persist. The director of the division of investigative oversight at ORI has stated his regret at the "collateral damage" caused by the policy (see page 32). But this is not collateral damage; it is a serious miscarriage of justice against researchers and a stain on the integrity of the system, and therefore of science.

It reminds me of the system present in US prisons, in which even after "serving their time," prisoners will still have trouble finding work because of their criminal records. But is it fair to compare felons to scientists who have, for instance, fudged their affiliations on a grant application when they were young and naïve?

The problem could be immediately solved by omitting findings of scientific misconduct from archived Web publications. Why can't the guilty be named solely in the ORI's Administrative Actions list, which presents current cases only?

I'm also concerned that the policy was defended on the grounds that publicity about wrongdoers acts as a deterrent. Increased efforts to tackle fraud are needed, but sacrificing the few that are caught is not the way.

There are much better methods of subverting fraud. There is little one can do about the motive to commit fraud, but one can have an influence on opportunity, for instance by:

• Prioritizing the teaching of a research code of conduct

• Strengthening procedures to detect and handle misconduct within academic institutions, which are quixotic at present

• Increasing the funding for ORI and similar agencies to improve levels of surveillance

• Giving formal responsibilities to journal editors for the identification of fraud

• Increasing the penalties for researchers found guilty of misconduct during the finite period of their sentence

Whatever is done, the rules should be followed in letter and in spirit. An unfair system of dealing with fraud is a stigma on science, as well as a grievous injustice for its victims.

rgallagher@the-scientist.com

Life after reporting scientific misconduct
by anonymous poster

How prevalent are scientific fraud nowadays? Do you believe that there are mass research midconducts in a specific scientific field?
The reason why scientific fraud is so prevalent in America is that most of the scientific fraudsters are not punished and almost all people who report the fraud were seriously retaliated against for their whistle blowing.



I worked in one of the most prestigious institutes in Boston and the world. In the work, I could not be able to recapitulate and develop a major story in the polycystic kidney disease field. Later I found out that some of the important data that were published and used by the laboratory to apply for NIH grants were falsified and fabricated. Astoundingly, my findings also indicated that several top laboratories in the field are probably involving in fabrication and/or falsification of scientific data. I presented the evidences and made complaints to the principle investigator of the laboratory and later the officials in the institute. However, I was retaliated against for my whistle blowing and was asked to leave my position. I have made research misconduct allegation and retaliation allegation in Office of Research Integrity in US Department of Health and Human Services.

Unfortunately, ORI only asked the institute set up self-investigation panels for both issues. After my complaining, the institute egregiously engaged in the retaliation and threatening, attempting to intimidate me. After an extremely unfair investigation, the institute terminated my position before the investigation to research misconduct actually started, releasing a clear signal to the people of research misconduct that the institute is helping them cover up their wrongdoings. If the research misconduct is covered up, millions dollars of taxpayers? money could be in danger of being wasted, the public health could be in danger of unprotected, and the truth might be buried by the lies.

Therefore, I am seeking for urgent assistance from anyone who will be able to give me a hand on this matter. My question is, how do we expose their misconducts in an effective way? I have tried to write to the journal, and my comments were largely ignored.

I would like to remind my fellow whistle blowers. My lesson is, in no case, should you go to the officer of research integrity within the institute by your own. Otherwise, you would be squeezed like a bug by the officer of research integrity.

Your kind assistance and/or information will be highly appreciated by all honest and hard-working scientists.

If you are interested in knowing the specific story, please contact me at lincbacon@yahoo.com.

First my disclaimer: I have not ever committed fraud, nor to the best of my knowledge, worked with or published with anyone who has committed scientific misconduct of any kind.

I felt the need to include the above because it seems that there is not much tolerance for neutral, or God-forbid, compassionate voices.

The question in my mind is whether the misconduct comes from an inherent character flaw (as suggested by some), or from a flaw in the system of academic support whereby a person may feel so desperate that they veer off the path of sound judgment. I do not currently steal food, but if my children were starving and there was no other way, then I probably would. To those who judge from their high horses, I would caution you to recognize that not all people share the same opportunities and resources. Publication and funding is not merely the path to glory - for many it represents the difference between comfort and misery.

What would impress ME most would be to see the heads of major research institutions come together and really address the issue of institutional support for faculty so that we do not ultimately scare away the next generation of researchers.

I do not condone scientific misconduct and I agree fully that the ripples are widespread and harm quite great. However, my personal preference would be for prevention rather than reaction.

"[I]s it fair to compare felons to scientists who have, for instance, fudged their affiliations on a grant application when they were young and na￯ve?"

Yes, it is. Both groups are deserving - equally so - of fair treatment after "paying their debt", and of enjoying the presumption of rehabilitation. Indeed, a case could be made for regarding felons who've served their sentences as more deserving in this regard than scientific fraudsters, given the overwhelming race and class bias of sentencing regimes in most countries, not least the US and Australia - a bias that presumably doesn't operate to any degree within the scientific research community.

Dear anonymous,

I understand your concern about keeping the article archived. I really do. I hope that you also understand that injustice and fraud need to be known and remembered. It?s the only way we can a) help prevent that others ever again suffer the consequences of fraud and injustice and b) work together to develop mechanisms to correct the system. Unfortunately, RECORDS are also used by people to reinforce their vindictiveness as to perpetuate the ?status quo?. I don?t believe in vindictive but in preventative and dignifying correctional mechanisms.

Let me share something with you:

In March 2007, when I was already at the Scripps Research Institute doing research and waiting for the Provost?s approval of my leave of absence, I received notification from Temple of my appointment to continue my research after finishing at Scripps. Few weeks before, I had received again the termination letter, which I was requested to return with my signature. I never returned my signature to that letter(s). So, I wrote to the Departmental Administrator for Appointments and Promotions at Penn (Path and Lab Medicine) telling her that I had received the appointment from Temple as to continue my research there for one year and be able to re-submit my grant from Temple.

The Departmental Secretary wrote back and said:? Rafaela, congratulations. Please send me the title and date of your appointment at Temple and a letter of resignation so that instead of having in your records that you were terminated, your records will show that you resign to take a new position at Temple?. Then, I wrote and send my resignation letter to the Dean at the School of Medicine.

A day later, I received a response from the Departmental Secretary: Rafaela, I am so sorry but your termination supersedes your resignation. Please, take care of yourself.

I could not explain such behavior. I couldn?t help but feeling devastated. Is this not a premeditated, planned and executed bad decision? Don?t you think that these actions should remain, for some time, in the historic memory of science and medicine?.

I could not find any explanations at all. Last summer, I found a possible explanation at the New York Times when discussing salaries of bank executives compared to academic leaders. The Dean at the School of Medicine gets an annual salary of over 3 million dollars. Where is this money from?. I don?t know, but it will be very sad if part of that money comes from indirect costs of NIH grants and/or private donor?s donations.

Here are my questions and suggestions:

Is it not reasonable to request changes in technical procedures when a specific scientific project has methodological requirements?.

Why penalize an investigator to pay fees to use research material that belongs to the public, in the first place, and is financed with public money and private donations?.

Is it not this a way to prevent an investigator to pursue her research?. Why?

What is the cost of raising your voice? Is it justified to raise your voice or to dissent in a scientific/academic arena?


I don?t believe in vindictiviness but in the power of leaders who a) show the honesty and compassion to recognize their errors and omissions and b) accept the consequences. That is always exemplary for scientists, doctors and administrators. And it is an example that remains in the public memory and help people not to lie when the temptation is right there.

It will be exemplary that the Dean of the School of Medicine admits negligent silence and offers his resignation to the University of Pennsylvania.

It will be appropriate that the School of Medicine discusses and decides what are the scientific and administrative required credentials to fill the position of Executive Director of Faculty Affairs and Professional Development of a School whose mission is to train, promote and support authentic leaders in science and medicine.


It will be fair that NIH examines the amount of dollars that the Directors of Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases and Institute of Aging have been receiving and NIH Advisory Councils, as well as Advisory Councils of Funding Institutes determine a way to correct these devastating errors and prevent that they ever happen again.

It will be also helpful that Editors of Journals discuss and discern with Professional Societies, NIH Advisory Councils, Research Foundations Leaders a) criteria to nominate members in their Editorial Boards (Journals) or Review Panels (Research Foundations) and b) design ways of intercommunication among journal?s Leadership as to implement effective and corrective measures when there are individuals who do not comply or are elusive in sharing material

We need to know and remember what happens to others so that we all help in recreating a system that honors and promotes a truthful scientific process, scientific values and ethical behavior.


Thank you.

What about good scientists that present facts that are politically unpopular and have their entire careers destroyed? Look at James Watson, Nobel-Prizewinning scientist, who had a book tour cancelled and lost his job for basically stating FACTS about the differences between races. Others take incessant abuse -- physical, mental, legal, and otherwise -- people like Phillip Rushton in Canada, Kevin MacDonald in California, and so many others that I personally know of! What this article needs to be saying is how we can better protect the greatest among us. People like Darwin, or Copernicus, or Galileo, or even Watson. We need to have ways to protect their careers and help them bring the sound information we need to make good decisions as a people for the future of humanity. THAT is what we need -- not leniency for weak-minded, degenerate, corrupt, fraudsters. We need to increase the culture of truth, not diminish it with leniency for fraud -- as painful as that migth be. Even a little disease spreads. Even a little cancer is dangerous. Science is sacred.

Science is all about finding the objective truth about our world--no matter what that truth is. If you do not love that process, you should be nowhere near a lab. I personally think that if you do not love objective truth and hold it dear that you should not get too close to the human race at all. Everything good comes from Objective truth -- justice and freedom for example. In my book "The Textbook of the Universe: the Genetic Ascent to God" I show that science is to religion as alchemy was to chemistry. Science is religion perfected. It holds the torch for the core soul of civilization. Science fraud is a meta-crime that shows such a lack of character, such selfishness, such depravity, that I feel the perpetrators should spend time in prison at the very least. Society would be MUCH better off if they NEVER went near a lab again. Some so-called "scientists" these days only have political agendas, and the science is secondary. They abuse the power of science for destructive and selfish ends. Some are extremely successful. I think they too should be expelled from civilization, or at least put in prison. Let them find other jobs as manual laborers or something else. I certainly would not want to work with one of these people.

As others noted below, it only takes a few minutes with Google to figure out exactly who the scientists are in the article. Not a very good job of making them anonymous.

Will you now make sure that the article is not archived?

Among the findings against persons who were found to have committed research misconduct -- (typically falsification or fabrication of data or text or credentials) by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) related to research on NIH grants or in applications for funding -- were persons who were later found to have again committed research misconduct and deserved to be exposed perennially in the NIH Guide and the Federal Register:

G.L. who was quoted in referenced The Scientist article as stating "he had done nothing wrong." The facts in the NIH Guide/ORI posting showed he falsely claimed in NIH grant application an M.D. degree, a professorship at Harvard and 13 patents -- none of which he had. Then he applied to be Vice Pres for Research at a major DC university, and thus to be the named Research Integrity Officer, linking to ORI and NIH. But a Washington Post news article about 1999 said university officials discovered (at the website) that he apparently made similar false credential claims to them, so he was immediately ushered off campus. Unrepentant he came to top NIH officials in 2004 to complain about the loss of a such job, and repeated his "nothing wrong" claim, then and to The Scientist in 2009.

K.T.L. was debarred from Federal funding for 3 years by ORI in 2001 for much falsification of data, but continued to work on NIH grants until discovered online in 2003, so he had to be re-debarred for 4 more years.

G.E.E. was debarred for 3 years by ORI in 1991 for falsification of data -- before ORI started making public findings -- then was found at a neighboring university to have falsified data again and he was re-debarred in 2003 for 5 years.

P.C.K. was debarred for mail fraud by O.P.M. in 1991, but was hired by another Federal agency (V.A.) in 2001 as a clinical research assistant; he falsely claimed an M.D. degree and wrongly registered veteran-patients for cancer trials, one of whom died. He was finally debarred for life and sentenced in 2006 for negligent homicide to 7 years in prison.

J.C.H. was debarred for 5 years by ORI in 1994 for major falsification of data -- but later was observed in that period to be supported by NIH grants on the opposite coast.

Given such recidivism, there is reason for such findings to remain available online (outside of the ORI website Administrative Actions listings, which are removed after the term of action ends).

Would you want to work with someone who lied to you?
Lied to you and to the whole scientific community?
Who put the lies(s) in print?
Who put the lie(s) out intentionally?

I have persoal experience of one such liar, who cooked his results and who lied to me, to Francis Crick, to Aaron Klug, to David Blow, to Maurice Wilkins, to Ken Holmes.
He played on those lies to get himself a Chair in a leading German University.
He was found out.
He is now the subject of student dissertations on "the pressures of science" and similar stuff.

IF YOU CAN'T TAKE THE HEAT - GET OUT OF THE LAB

Sorry Anonymous. No need to be upset if you're not guilty. You're not requested to come in or participate if your approach is not to look at the facts.

The guilty always rationalize why they became the victims. Ridiculous. Just go away. Forever.

Who is guilty?

Yes, our assertions ought to be based on facts (and proven facts) so that errors are corrected, similar omissions are prevented and we can continue to build the truth in our scientific endeavors.

My termination?s appointment was a capricious, vindictive, abusive act of power at the School of Medicine that ignored the Executive Committee Regulations of the Trustees of the University (see below)

November 4, 2005 Executive Committee Minutes, Resolutions ...
Adjusted mandatory non-tenure probationary period for Dr. Rafaela Canete-Soler,
Research Assistant Professor of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine in the Associated Faculty of the School of Medicine effective July 1, 2005 (non-tenure probationary period commenced July 1, 2001). Adjusted mandatory review is academic year 2009-2010. [This change in mandatory non-tenure review is granted pursuant to Trustee Resolution of June 17, 2005.]

My termination ignored also the Faculty Handbook regulations. A Faculty member has the right to request a leave of absence without salary through the Provost? office, who is the ultimate authority to decide on such a request.

In my application/request to the Provost (Nov/Dec 2006), I included a detailed scientific plan to be executed: First, at the Scripps Research Institute for 6 months (role of neuronal p190RhoGEF in cancer) and Second, at an RNA lab at Temple University for a successive year (characterization of a putative novel neuronal double-stranded RNAse). My leave of absence totaled 18 months. My reappointment was to be rereviewed, according to the Executive Committee, in 2009-2010.

I informed the Provost?s Office on my termination and when the Office inquired the Faculty Affairs at the School of Medicine, the Executive Director said that my request did not have a defined period of time. This was simply not true.



It is a fact that I was having extreme difficulties at the Neuro Study Sections to have my R01s funded. Let me tell you that my last two R01s review have revealed flagrant inappropriate comments and influences. I alerted the CSR and appealed.

It is a fact that I requested material at the Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases in 2004
to confirm data solicited by a reviewer for publication of a manuscript. I was given the material for free, as expected.

It is a fact that later on, I asked autopsy material for a different project and requested that the material not be fixed in their standard way, 70% ethanol, but with my specific protocol since my work on RNA had specific methodological requirements. I offered myself to help and do it with their very cooperative technician. I did not receive a personal response but a cc email from the Director of the Center to its Manager asking her to give me the fees that I had to pay to have the material requested. The Directors were very well aware of my lack of funds and my difficulties with my R01s because one of them was my official mentor. Also we were at the same Division, within the same Department.
I complained to the Department first and then to NIH because it was obvious that the Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases/ Institute of Aging were heavily funded by NIH as well as private donors. After my complaint, the Center gave me some of the material from brain and cerebellum but not brainstem or spinal cord. They said they did not have sufficient brainstem or spinal cord for their own experiments. That was understandable.

It is also a fact that, after my complaint, the Department financed during six months some of my experiments with funds from a PI working on a completely different field, who offered help. This is proper scientific behavior that is to be praised, promoted and rewarded.

I, of course, have many questions

Who is guilty?.

Who oversights Faculty Affairs?. Did the Executive Director acted alone?. Which are the requisite credentials for someone at this position to act ignoring the rules?

Was the Dean?s Office informed on the decision prior to sending the termination letter?

What kind of scientific values underlie the decision to deny any scientist a leave of absence WITHOUT A SALARY at very difficult times and, in turn, terminate her 3 years before her due reappointment review in violation of the Executive Committee Resolution?.

Are the Trustees of every University in the USA, are generous private donors, are public taxpayers aware of some the actions and consequences of their generosity?

Are these fraudulent actions?.

Are, certain behaviors at a School of Medicine, susceptible to ?rehabilitation??

Queen Latifah seemed to have understood how the system works in science. Here is an excerpt of her song at Broadway (Chicago musical)

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The keeper of the keys: Mama MONEY

It?s a lot of favors I am prepared to do
You do one for Mama, She?ll do one for you !

Don?t you know the system ????

When you?re good to mama
Mama is good to YOU !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The whole science community is in a crisis and the control mechanisms are not working. The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) should unannounced sweep every Department in every University including the Ivy League Universities regarding misconduct in any form. Why? Because we are in a time where one can easily claim that 80% of all publication coming from the US contain fabricated or fraudulent results. As many comments already stated, it is the tax payer?s money which is misused. But even worst, the publications which are based on false results, misleading and even preventing correct future experiments, because they are the basis for wrong generated future experimental hypothesis. Especially in a time where data mining from publications are gain more and more influence in science.
Instead ORI claims it is the job of the Universities to follow up on misconduct cases (Repairing research integrity (2008) Nature, 453: 980-982). I can tell from observations, after working 10 years in the US, that Department chairs and Deans have no interest in perusing any kind of investigation into such things. The person rather gets promoted instead of investigated.
A person who performs misconduct has done it before and will continue to do it as said in one of the other comments. The danger is that such people gain more and more influence in the scientific community and they will prevent that the honest scientists will have any chance to survive or even come back into the field. The honest scientists are critical, ask questions and they are compelled to unravel misconduct when they observe or identified it and to make it public. Nowadays, a mafia- or better cosa nostra-like structure has been developed in which only the scientist survive which perform misconduct protected by the wall of silence. That will hurt science in the long run even if NIH would increase funding soon, because there are hardly any of the critical scientists left.
We dealing with criminals and every scientist who performs misconduct should be treated like a criminal. Instead of relaxing the system, a stronger system is needed, in which based on the severity of misconduct imprisonment is implemented. However, I agree with the article, that a fair judgment needs to established, in which wrongly accused scientist have a possibility to defend themselves. To be able to establish such a system, one need to make sure that every scientist is educated what misconduct in science is. Hence every scientist needs to participate throughout his/her scientific live in ethics classes as it is done for animal experiments. This should start in the University as demonstrated by graduate students from the University of Toronto 2008 who pledged an oath to science during their commencement (LINK
For now, every person who reports any misconduct should be treated as a hero instead of being labeled as a whistleblower. One step into such a direction is the use of: LINK a website in which publications that are based on misconduct can be made public, to increase the pressure on such scientists and to start their removal from a profession which is the greatest on earth, science.
However, nobody should find any excuse for a behavior, which leads to misconduct. If people would have more spine, backbone or courage they would not give in to the pressure generated throughout the last 7 years by the reduced amount of money provided to the NIH and hence science.

Behavior is a repetitive pattern and does not change, in particular, bad behavior. If they committed fraud, they likely did it previously and would do it again. I would NEVER hire someone with such a past.

I reckon a lot of people have experienced this.

I hope that you equally support rehabilitation and justice for pedophiles who are hounded after they have served their time and other criminals who experience difficulties because their records appear on the internet.

What is perhaps worse is that what appears on the internet is not even necessarily accurate.

It seems the writer wants to legalise fraud.
Fraud is science is not done at the spur of the moment, like other crimes.
A scientist after having three degrees, BS, MS and PhD is expected to be well behaved and cannot be compared with the other criminals who has 'completed the term in prison"
The poor people's money is given in the hand of educated scientist with lots of faith as the poors dont know what is happening, and to britch that faith is one of the highest order of crime.
There are million ways of making money, if one is not genuinely inclined to do research why then he/she is coming to science and then spoils the field?
Science is the mother of all, and to commit a fraud in science is like abusing your own mother, I think the fraudsters should not only banned for three years they also should be jailed for three years and then never be allowed to come in science.


probably fraud is the result of increasing careerism in science. If that is removed fraud will not take place.

Dear anonymous,

Sorry that my first short e-mail looked like I was justifying fraud. I am not at all.

I am not complacent either with ? the disease of the system? in science. Because it is there where the problem starts. Peer review at all levels, and robust elements of governance at research institutions are, in my view, key to help correcting the problem.

Number of grants and number of publications do not always equal scientific quality or advancing a field of knowledge. But numbers of grants is what give people influence in their Departments and Universities to set up policies that impact directly on how science is practiced and taught. And ?bad decisions? can be as premeditated as the fraud cases you describe.

Nothing justify fraud or injustice and if the ?disease of the system? could be effectively treated, some people might not feel driven to fake papers, experiments, proposals etc.


In my view, the disease of the system can be as bad for science as committing fraud.

Thanks

What you describe is a disease of the system and that all of us suffer. Look at all levels the rampant corruption in the banks, companies , government that went amok over the last eight years. This has not excluded the throat cutting policies of the universities, the unfairness and the lack of enforcing all these bad decisions without consequences. However your first email was justifying fraud, and these other decisions are not fraud they are unfair decisions. I think is a big difference between correcting the bias unjustice of the system and allowing those committing fraud, which in most cases premeditation has been involved and eventually execution to carried out and deceive others.

Yes, fraud in varying degrees of severity may be committed. Justice/punishment should match the severity of the misdeed. Nonetheless we are all part of a community not just isolated individuals.

How do you repair damage to the field, the lab a fraudster may have worked in and his/her colleagues? You would think that sanctions for misconduct and fraud would be an effective deterrent. Any intelligent and rational person should understand this.

I have no sympathy for people who are frauds and behave in a manner that demonstrates a lack of personal or professional integrity. If it were my decision they would wear a scarlet "F"

Dear anonymous,

Yes. I have worked in a lab in several European countries before spending 15 years doing research in the USA. I know what is like sending grants to NIH, receiving critiques from Study Sections and having one of my R01s disappearing (and never found) from my folder at the Commons. I know what is like never receiving an explanation for my missing grant in spite of my inquiries to CSR/NIH.

I know how it feels requesting a leave of absence without a salary at an Ivy League University and not getting a response because the Provost never received my request. Instead of receiving the letter from the Provost who is the authority to give such a permission, I received one from the Department stating: ? as per university policy requesting grant support for Research Faculty?.your appointment ended on December 31, 2006 and will not be renewed beyond that date?.


I know what many of us have gone and are going through because I have experienced it in my own flesh. Yet, I believe that vindictive penance does not make the system better.

Thank you

Editors must take some action and if universities refuse to take action on issues of misconduct to retract the papers involved. The editoral staff - editors in chief have been provided the actual data sets - the data sets with the actual key to the experimental treatments in two trials and had eye witness testimony and documention of multiple lines ( experiment treatments ) called one inter se mating line - in a third trial. Read the letters to the editor in the journal of animal science. How can a person give honest testimony and actual data be ingored and issues not resolved. Without ORI - with some power to resolve and investigate - agricultural research is a free for all.

Your myopic analysis misses key impacts of fraud on both the personal life of scientists and the field at large. False data that is incldued in a grant application or published in the scientific literature has a serious and lasting impact on others. From the personal standpoint, it could result in the non-funding a junior researcher who then is denied tenure. A lifetime impact.
If published in the literature, it has the potential to derail and sidetrack scientific progress for years, until the fraud is detected or many scientists waste their valuable time and efforts to discredit a false finding and conclusion. In view of these impacts, I don't think existing punishment is harsh at all.
How about Fairness for the Defrauded?

This article is quite disturbing . No fraud in science is the rule. Suffer the consequences, the law and rules are clear. Otherwise we become like the American Legal system, making hundred of excuses and appeals to not be punish people that are caught in fraganti and still claim innocence.

I disagree with your statement that it is a very unfair the rules and decisions against those committed fraud. The consequences of a fraudulent paper can mislead many people at a terrible in time , money and reputation. Besides are some cultures particularly people from two countries in Asia that they are so desperate to be somebody that they do the impossible to get results == fabricate them. they do not feel that is bad and it is a blatant example of all the pirating and corruption going in those countries. It also is why to commit fraud, I think is better that the journals relax and allow people to publish what often is consider negative results. After many years some of these studies have proved that the information is not that bad. Often people repeat the same experiments years later to find out trough friends that somebody did the same experiment many years ago and got the same results.
I think that even with these consequences of fraud it is absolutely amazing how much fraud is going on. Often you find published papers verbatim in two different journals

I think the idea of rehabilitation is inappropriate here. The opportunity to work within the scientific community is not a right. Obviously the current situation, of long term non-formal exclusion of individuals that have proven themselves untrustworthy, accurately reflects the will of the scientific community, or at least those members of the community in charge of hiring and/or promotion. If it did not then the opportunity cost would not be as wide spread as reported here.
When the pool of available scientific talent has expanded to the point that the average scientist spends ~5 years in "postdoctoral training" due to lack of opportunity why would you waste positions on individuals that have already proven themselves incapable of following the necessarily rigorous ethical principals of modern science?

In my mind, there is no excuse for fraud in science. Scientists are grown adults, not naive little kids who do not know the difference between right and wrong. Scientists who knowingly push fake data into the scientific community, whom can only trust it based on good faith, need to be punished. Actions such as these only serve to deter scientific progress and leads to mistrust between scientists. Such actions need harsh punishments if only to serve as a motivation NOT TO LIE. I agree, despite the harsh consequences, there are still such infractions committed, but the answer is not to lessen the punishment, but to further educate all scientists to the penalties. Those who commit fraud do not think that this may happen to them or feel that they may "get away with it," and for those who still commit despite knowing the consequences, deserve to be punished accordingly. I, personally, have no tolerance for scientists who knowingly lie to the scientific community to advance their own careers or succumb to pressure that everyone experiences in these harsh economic times. You are an adult, so deal with the consequences. To avoid this, maintain your integrity and JUST DON'T DO IT!!!

While there may be long term effects for even minor offences it boils down to right and wrong.

If you can lie on a grant application what's to stop you from more severe infractions later on.

I appreciate Stephen?s clarification on ?range of misconduct? and agree with John that the ?key is to develop a mechanism to have the individual earn back the trust lost?.
We all know that there are misconducts and serious misconducts that are silenced because of power, influence or other reasons. There is also fraud that never comes to light by sheer luck. Harsh punishments on a few is, in my view, not fair. Pushing the edge close to vindictive penance does not help anyone.

Thank you for the comments.

Fraud in science alters the trust in the entire scientific community. The effect of misconduct is not local but global because all research is ultimately connected on a basis of trust. Every fraud that is not caught on time has the potential to become a big Ponzi. This is why punishment for science fraud has to be for life. Look at Madoff and think : why did he get not 3 but 150 years for his conduct?

Clowns like Gov Sanford or Sptizer get second chances; why shouldn't other people who make mistakes?

Too much punishment? You must be kidding (or you were one of these guys). Have you considered the fame they gained and the tax payers' money and the time they wasted when many others spent years to duplicate their 'major' findings? In my view, fraudsters should be banned for life from getting federal money!

Anecdotes aside, in the US, transgressions of integrity are nearly always dealt with a wink and a grin. It therefore comes as great surprise to those who violate trust when they become subject to severe societal repercussions.

Unfortunately, these are lessons that should have been learned as a child, not as a fully trained member of the scientific community. Recovering one's trustworthiness, especially in matters as weighty as additions to the scientific knowledge base, should be very difficult and the bar set extremely high.

It is hard to argue against the basic premise of this piece, that the punishment ought not exceed the intended sentence. And, it may be overly harsh to sentence all violators to indefinite suspension of scientific privilege. The key is to develop a mechanism for the individual to earn back the trust lost.

It is important to recognize the range of kinds of misconduct that we call "fraud". We have to be able to distinguish between something like claiming an untrue affiliation, at one extreme, and plagiarizing a proposal one is supposed to be reviewing, near the other extreme, and simply creating false data, as in the "Case of the Midwife Toad," or the fraudulent twin studies of Cyril Burtt.
In those extreme cases, the three-year penalty is clearly too mild. It is easy to justify lifetime exclusions for those extreme violations, just as it is easy to argue for modest punishments for modest violations of scientific integrity.

Thank you for your beautiful article. I totally agree.