Should we criminalize fraud in science? Some people are saying so.
As Chris Said writes:
In 2006, Sylvain Lesné published an influential Nature paper showing how amyloid oligomers could cause Alzheimer’s disease. With over 2,300 citations, the study was the 4th most cited paper in Alzheimer’s basic research since 2006, helping spur up to $287 million of research into the oligomer hypothesis, according to the NIH.
Sixteen years later, Science reported that key images of the paper were faked, almost certainly by Lesné himself, and all co-authors except him have agreed to retract the paper. The oligomer hypothesis has failed every clinical trial.
Lesné’s alleged misconduct misled a field for over a decade. We don’t know how much it has delayed an eventual treatment for Alzheimer’s, and it was not the only paper supporting the oligomer hypothesis. But if it delayed a successful treatment by just 1 year, I estimate that it would have caused the loss of 36 million QALYs (Quality Adjusted Life Years), which is more than the QALYs lost by Americans in World War II. (See my notebook for an explanation.)
Lesné is not alone. This year we learned of rampant image manipulation at Harvard’s Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, including in multiple papers published by the institute’s CEO and COO. So far 6 papers have been retracted and 31 corrected. The 6 retracted papers alone have 1,400 citations and have surely polluted the field and slowed down progress. If they delayed a successful cancer drug by just 1 year, I estimate they would have caused the loss of 15 million QALYs, or twice the number of QALYs lost by Americans in World War I.
A QALY is a Quality Adjusted Life Year, a measure of health / longevity benefits.
The point is that scientific fraud can have serious consequences. (Especially when, as is often the case, the fraudsters attain a sufficiently elevated position to starve competing ideas of grant money.)
Said notes that these aren’t the only examples ...
We certainly prosecute people for much less dramatic frauds all the time, frauds that have much less impact.
So it makes sense to punish science fraud, which has the potential to do tremendous harm. But.
There are a few problems. First, previous experience with trying to police science fraud suggests that our authorities aren’t very good at it.
now reading:
Investigative Issues: Criminalizing Science Fraud, and Other Ideas for Promoting Scientific Integrity
