Research Misconduct /Common Mistakes and Consequences
Research misconducts take place where a scholar or researcher fails, deliberately or dangerously, to adhere to the accepted standards of research established by a university. It can also result from deviation from the standard research practices. One needs to different research misconduct from honest errors and misconduct not associated with the research. Honest errors do not arise due to negligence but may occur during the research design, interpretation, execution, or analysis of the results. Research misconduct may include errors arising due to acts of commission and omission. While assessing research misconduct, one should make a judgment based on the existing circumstances when the misconduct being investigated occurred. It is crucial to evaluate the research misconduct/ common mistakes and their consequences.
While researching, some behaviors are at odds with the founding principles of science and end up being treated harshly by institutions and scientific communities responsible for guiding research. The behaviors at odds with core principles of scientific research entail research misconduct, and anyone engaging in such practices ends up jeopardizing his/ her scientific career. Further, anyone engaging in research misconduct threatens the overall reputation of science, and health, and the intended well-being of the beneficiaries of the research. According to the National Institute of Health (2018), research misconduct entails “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results, according to 42 CFR Part 93.,” but excludes differences of opinion and honest error. Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
Fabrication entails making up data to have skewed results as the research may wish to be reflected in the results. The scholar may also makeup data due to laziness or have other excuses for not collecting actual data. A scholar may fake data while struggling to meet the expectation while under pressure. In so doing, the scholar may end up completing data collection forms using fake participants’ names and information. An example of a scholar who faked data was reported in the New York Times Magazine, where Eric Poehlman confessed to fabricating data on obesity, aging, and menopause. At the same time, he was a tenured faculty member at the University of Vermont (Interlandi, 2006). Despite faking data, he also presented fraudulent data to students and used to obtain federal grants. Poehlman ended up being convicted and sentenced to federal prison.
Falsification includes the manipulation of research processes, equipment, and materials. It may also entail omitting or altering results or data, resulting in the research not being represented accurately in the records. Data may be falsified to realize precise predetermined results similar to the Poehlman case when research about aging, menopause, and obesity.
Plagiarism is research misconduct, as well as an academic offense. In research, plagiarism entails using other people’s ideas, results, or data without giving the appropriate credit (National Academy of Sciences, 2009). During the research, plagiarism is not limited to intellectual property whereby one uses other scholar’s patented intellectual property without permission and without acknowledging ownership. There is also self- plagiarism, whereby the researcher may reuse their work without providing acknowledgment.
Another issue revolving around research misconduct is a misrepresentation. Misrepresentation is a broad term in research misconduct that needs to be expounded. Misrepresentation of data involves gross negligence where data ends up being flawed during the interpretation and presentation. This can also arise when a researcher misrepresents the data intentionally and ends up suppressing the actual findings. Misrepresentation may also involve duplicating a publication in an undisclosed manner that may entail submitting a duplicate for publication.
Misrepresentation of interest may arise when a researcher fails to declare an interest or by the research financiers. The conflict of interest may result in the scholars being biased during the research since they expect to have results that favor the interests of the funders. For instance, a case whereby Exxon Mobil funds a study on the impact of gas on global warming is likely to result in misrepresentation unless the scholars declare the funders’ interest. This is because the firm is engaged in gas and oil exploration would most likely be interested in results indicating a lack of correlation between gas use and global warming. Through such findings, the firm can be justified to extend its gas and oil exploration.
According to the University of Leicester (2020), misrepresentation may also involve experience or qualification. Thus, a researcher may falsify about competency and expertise when carrying out research. Through this, the scholar may end up securing a grant or influencing the research assistants in a way that can affect the outcome or results of research.
Misrepresentation on authorship arises when one may claim authorship of a particular academic article even though the individual made minimal contribution to the study. Alternatively, a researcher may be denied authorship of a scholarly article or book despite making a significant contribution. However, it is complicated to define what can be referred to as a substantial or insignificant contribution to research.
Research misconduct may include breaching the duty of care, which may occur by gross negligence, deliberately, or recklessly (Resnik, Rasmussen, & Kissling, 2015). Just like misrepresentation, breach of care can be explained in detail since it is a broad context. It can arise when inappropriately a researcher discloses the identity of individuals participating in research without their consent. Hence, breaching confidentiality ethical principles results in the breach of duty of care.
Breach of care also is research misconduct when the participants’ health or life is jeopardized by the scholar researching without their consent, or without putting optimal safety measures in place. The participants may be the sample or research assistants. Irrespective of whether the participants have the consent of the dangers or not, safety measures should be put in place. Breach of care also occurs when the participants are not informed about the dangers and risks facing the research, are not aware of neither the research financiers nor research objectives. Lack of this information results in uninformed consent, which is not obtained transparently.
Breach of care can arise when the researcher fails to observe reasonable and legal ethical requirements of care for human organs, animals, or human objects being used during research. The ethical requirement may also focus on environmental protection, which is a concern in the 21st century, where sustainable development is of paramount essence. Breach of duty also includes improper conduct during peer reviewing of research proposals or the research’s results. The inappropriate conduct may be catalyzed by a conflict of interest, incompetence, abuse of material, and inadequate disclosure. Lastly, research misconduct occurs when a researcher fails to abide by the professional, legal, and ethical requirements, which includes the inability to meet the standards set by professional bodies.
Like the case of Poehlman, there are hefty consequences of research misconduct, which include being convicted, jailed, killed, and fired from employment. Even though justice takes time to be realized, the consequences are harsh and may include one being killed depending on the legal framework within an economy (Enago Academy, 2018). For instance, there is research misconduct whereby some scholars are falsely claiming to have a cure for the recent global healthcare issue, coronavirus (Gharib, 2020). Such scholars are likely to face the wrath of China’s communist legal system that does not entertain nonsense. The other consequence of research misconduct is a negative image of scientific research, which results in declining public trust in science. Therefore, research misconduct should not be tolerated.
References
Enago Academy. (2018). The Effect of Scientific Misconduct on a Researcher’s Career. Retrieved from https://www.enago.com/academy/effect-of-scientific-misconduct-on-researchers-career/.
Gharib, M. (2020). Fake Facts Are Flying About Coronavirus. Now There’s A Plan To Debunk Them. NPR. Retrieved from npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/02/21/805287609/theres-a-flood-of-fake-news-about-coronavirus-and-a-plan-to-stop-it.
Interlandi, J. (2006). An Unwelcome Discovery. The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/magazine/22sciencefraud.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.
National Academy of Sciences, N. A. (2009). On being a scientist: a guide to responsible conduct in research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press (U.S.).
National Institute of Health. (2018). Research Misconduct – Definitions. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from https://grants.nih.gov/policy/research_integrity/definitions.htm.
Resnik, D. B., Rasmussen, L. M., & Kissling, G. E. (2015). An international study of research misconduct policies. Accountability in research, 22(5), 249-266.
University of Leicester. (2020). 6.2 Types of misconduct in research. Retrieved from https://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/researchsupport/integrity/code-of-conduct/6-research-misconduct/6-2-types-of-misconduct-in-research.