22. Science & School
text Malini Witlox photo Jack Tummers
Unscrupulous science: how to avoid it Dismay, astonishment, anger. Various emotions held sway over the public debate after it became known that Diederik Stapel, professor at Tilburg University and Dean of the Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences (TSB), was suspended for fabricating research data. A fact-finding committee was set up, investigating in which studies misconduct took place. Meanwhile, the scientific community is coming to grips with the question how to avoid a similar scandal in the future.
Code of conduct In 2004, an Association of Universities in the Netherlands-workgroup drew up The Netherlands Code of Conduct for Scientific Practice. All university teachers and researchers affiliated to a Dutch university are required to abide by it. Five principles govern this code. Foremost, scientific activities need to be scrupulously executed. Mounting pressure to achieve shouldn’t affect this, the code states. “Scrupulousness is expressed through precision and nuance ... A scientific practitioner avoids personal relationships that may give rise to reasonable doubt concerning the objectivity of his decisions.” The second fundamental cornerstone of the code: reliability. Selective omission of research results needs to be reported and justified. “The data have indeed been collected. The statistical methods employed are pertinent to the acquired data.” Also, the presented information should be verifiable. “Whenever research results are publicized, it is made clear what the data and the conclusions are based on, where they were derived from and how they can be verified. Research must be replicable to verify its accuracy.” Finally, the scientist should work in independence and liberty. “Whenever a scientific practitioner is commissioned to provide instruction or conduct research, he is allowed ... to execute the assignment without interference by the commissioning party.”
Verifiable Fine words indeed, but practice shows otherwise. Nearly all principles lost out when it comes to Stapel’s case. It also shows it’s easier said than done for scientists to review each other’s data thoroughly. Usually, these are stacks of questionnaires and interviews. These forms can obviously be handed to co-researchers, but who can be sure that the fraudulent scientist hasn’t filled in some of his own questionnaires during field research? Verifiability can be guaranteed when scientists always conduct their questionnaires together. That’s very labor-intensive, though.
One-off Stapel didn’t adhere to the proper scientific practice, contrary to common
Univers 22 september 2011
belief. However, is it a one-off, or does it happen more often? Scientists are usually very principled, says Robbert Dijkgraaf, President of the Royal Netherlands Academy for Arts and Sciences. “Science is based on trust, and especially on facts. One can always debate if the facts warrant the conclusions. However, those facts are always our foundation. When they’re fabricated, things go awry. Worldwide, only a few cases report the use of invented data. Why someone would do such a thing? Hard to say. When it proves to be successful once, you might just try again. The pressure to succeed is high, but hardly anyone is unable to resist temptation. It happens very rarely, as far as we’re aware. Nevertheless, do we know what we don’t know?”
Integrity The science community, known for its hierarchy, rather obstructs the verifiability of studies. Universities abound in lecturers, PhD students, senior lecturers and professors in all gradations. Plenty of ranks to go around. Although you might have suspicions, criticizing someone ranking above you is difficult. Tilburg University has formulated a Scientific Integrity Arrangement, which states that ‘everyone is authorized to notify the Rector of matters which, reasonably, touch upon scientific integrity’. Ultimately, three young researchers did this. They raised their suspicions of fraud with researcher Marcel Zeelenberg, who informed Philip Eijlander. It must have been hard to take action, especially since Stapel also acts as Dean of the TSB. Should you be mistaken, your career is at stake.
Repeat An investigation into scientific practices will be necessary in order to prevent similar incidents. Ethical behavior can’t be taken for granted. Scientific practitioners will have to be more critical of one another; respecting each other’s knowledge but at the same time be governed by a critical academic mind. Neither should they be guided by fear instilled by hierarchy nor act upon personal preferences and pressures to publish in scientific journals. Only a critical attitude can prevent another scandal-Stapel. It’s up to science now.