Preventing and processing research misconduct: a new Australian code for responsible research

Van Der Weyden, Martin B

doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2006.tb00312.x

Topics

Statistics, epidemiology and research design

It all depends on compliance

Earlier this year, public trust in research was dealt a severe blow when evidence emerged that a renowned Norwegian researcher, John Sudbo, had fabricated and falsified data in articles on oral cancer published in The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine.1 This news followed hot on the heels of the exposure of fraudulent research by the Korean stem-cell researcher, Woo Suk Hwang, published in Science and Nature.2 There is no doubt these events are but the tip of the iceberg, as research misconduct is endemic,3 and may well become more prominent as the competitiveness and commercialisation of research escalates.4,5

The Medical Journal of Australia, Sydney, NSW.

Correspondence: medjaust@ampco.com.au

1. Eaton L. Norwegian researcher admits that his data were faked. BMJ 2006; 332: 193.
2. Writing a new ending for a story of scientific fraud [editorial]. Lancet 2006; 367: 1.
3. Wadman M. One in three scientists confesses to having sinned. Nature 2005; 435: 718-719.
4. Krimsky S. Science in the private interest. Has the lure of profits corrupted biomedical research? Lanham, Md: Rowan & Littlefield, 2003.
5. Bok D. Universities in the marketplace. The commercialisation of higher education. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003.
6. Van Der Weyden MB. Managing allegations of scientific misconduct and fraud: lessons from the “Hall affair” [editorial]. Med J Aust 2004; 180: 149-151.
7. Australian code for the responsible conduct of research. Second draft, February 2006. Available at: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/funding/policy/code.htm (accessed March 2006).
8. Martinson BC, Anderson MS, de Vries R. Scientists behaving badly. Nature 2005; 435: 737-738.
9. Rennie D. Dealing with research in the United Kingdom. An American perspective on research integrity. BMJ 1998; 316: 1726-1728.
10. Policing integrity [editorial]. Nature 2005; 435: 248.
11. O’Neill O. A question of trust. The BBC Reith Lectures 2002. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
12. Rennie D, Gunsalus CK. Scientific misconduct. New definitions, procedures and office — perhaps a new leaf [editorial]. JAMA 1993; 269: 915-917.
13. White C. Call for research misconduct agency. BMJ 1998; 316: 1695.
14. Sox HC, Rennie D. Research misconduct, retraction and cleaning the medical literature: lessons from the Poehlman case. Ann Intern Med 2006; 144: E7-E11.

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.