Related Experiment Videos
Misrepresentation and responsibility in medical research.
R L Engler1, J W Covell, P J Friedman
1Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego 92093.
The New England Journal of Medicine
|November 26, 1987
Summary
Research fraud can evade detection despite peer review and replication. The scientific community must address fraud while protecting whistleblowers and avoiding stifling innovation.
Area of Science:
- Medical Research Ethics
- Scientific Misconduct
Context:
- A case involving Robert A. Slutsky, M.D., revealed widespread issues in scientific publishing.
- An investigation of 137 articles found 12 cases of fraud and 48 questionable papers.
Purpose:
- To analyze the Slutsky case and its implications for detecting research fraud.
- To discuss the challenges in identifying sophisticated scientific dishonesty.
Summary:
- Sophisticated scientific fraud can escape peer review and replication.
- Competition and pressure to publish may create conflicts between career goals and scientific integrity.
- The case highlights the need for institutional procedures to investigate suspected fraud.
Impact:
- The scientific community must develop better methods to deter research fraud.
- Procedures are needed to protect those who report misconduct and the accused.
- Balancing fraud deterrence with fostering originality and collaboration is crucial.