Science Must Police Its Ranks : Why are whistle-blowers often penalized and misdeeds overlooked?
It is to be assumed and hoped that instances of fakery and dishonesty in science are rare. What is more troubling is the sluggish, even hostile, reaction of institutions of higher learning when confronted with suspected fraud by their research staffs.
The tortured case of Dr. Thereza Imanishi-Kari at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology offers a case in point. Eight years ago she published a paper in the journal Cell that offered dramatic evidence that a mouse’s immune response to disease could be enhanced by inserting foreign genes into its cells. Last Friday federal investigators said that she had faked the data and then tried to cover up the misdeeds. They recommended she be barred from participating in federally funded research for 10 years.
But the matter is more complicated. A co-author of the paper was Dr. David Baltimore, a Nobel-prize-winning molecular biologist who then directed the laboratory at MIT. In a questionable practice that is too common, his name was put on the paper even though he had nothing directly to do with the study.
When a whistle-blower raised doubts about the research, both MIT and Baltimore reacted frostily. It has been charged that Baltimore, while not faking any data himself, continued to defend his colleague and resisted making a correction. His role too is under probe by the government; no finding has yet been reached.
What makes the matter even more extraordinary is that last week’s charges came only after congressional intervention. Initial investigations by both MIT and the Department of Health and Human Services, which funded the research, found little evidence of misconduct.
Then Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, asked for forensic help from the Secret Service. Examining the ink and paper of Imanishi-Kari’s notebooks, the Secret Service found she had pasted together old data and fabricated other details. The final federal report concluded that she had never performed the experiments, which other scientists later tried and failed to replicate.
Science has clearly been lax in policing its own ranks. Whistle-blowers have been penalized at many universities and misdeeds often overlooked. A congressionally mandated Commission on Research Integrity has been studying how to ensure the honesty of federally funded biomedical research.
The commission report, expected in 1996, should help define what constitutes scientific misconduct and make clear to universities and research hospitals that they bear a heavy responsibility to combat it. No one wants to deter unorthodox research that challenges scientific dogma. But unethical practices are threats to public trust. The panel should craft strict guidelines that both protect ethical standards of scientific creativity and preserve freedom of inquiry.
