On Writing (5): Fabrication, Falsification and Plagerism in Medical Research and Publishing

This is the fifth in a series of articles on medical writing and publishing. In this one we look at the “Dark Side” of research and publishing, namely fraud. When I recently looked at a textbook on medical writing published 25 years ago, this issue was covered in a few short paragraphs. Unfortunately, despite their honorable “calling”, members of the medical profession are not immune to the temptations of scientific fraud, as evidenced by a series of spectacular and well-publicized cases over the years. In 1974, Dr William Summerlin claimed to have shown that skin taken from a black mouse could be transplanted into a white one. It turned out that he had used a black felt-tip marker to color a graft of white skin! In another infamous case, American researcher John Darsee was shown to have fabricated the results of over 100 published studies. His work came under scrutiny when colleagues wondered how anyone could publish a new research paper approximately every 10 days! As pointed out by other commentators, accusations of scientific fraud are not new: dark rumors still circulate that famous scientists in history, from Sir Isaac Newton to Gregor Mendel and Louis Pasteur, must have manipulated their data to get such good results! Outright fraud in research and publication comes in a variety of guises, including fabrication (making up data), falsification (changing data), plagiarism (copying the work of others and perhaps “piracy” (stealing others’ ideas). However, other abuses, such as duplicate (or multiple) publication and “gift authorship” (making colleagues who have not contributed to the work authors) may also be considered fraudulent. Needless to say, the exposure of fraud has serious consequences for the perpetrators: their reputations are irreversibly tarnished, they can face civil - and even criminal - penalties, and their promising research careers are ruined (along with any hope of academic promotion and tenure). As the potential for “collateral damage” (e. g. adverse publicity, censure by government agencies) is enormous when cases of scientific fraud are exposed, institutions where basic and/or clinical research take place are strongly motivated to detect fraud and prevent its dissemination.

1 Reproduced with permission from the Duke University Medical Center Department of Medicine Faculty Development Handbook, June, 2002.