In English: Science Producers

Science producers

TEXT Kaisa-Reetta Seppänen TRANSLATION Henna Kaaresto ILLUSTRATION Siru Tirronen

A scientist’s carieer may come to a quick end if it appears their whole research data is pulled out of a hat like a magician’s rabbit.

It’s unnecessary to reinvent the wheel. Every student at some point in time has worked on “command-c-command-v, remember to change the word order” -essays and had their fingers crossed while turning in the essay into the turnit-in plagiarism detection service. Only five percent - it’s an original!

In Finland, the most memorable case of plagiarism emerged in 2018 when the University of Jyväskylä’s investigation found that, once a presidential candidate, currently a Member of the European Parliament, Laura Huhtasaari had plagiarised over ten percent of her pro gradu thesis on multicultural comprehensive school; according to Yleisradio’s investigative journalism unit MOT’s review, as much as 30 percent of Huhtasaari’s work was plagiarised directly or almost directly. Huhtasaari’s case was brought to the public eye due to her societal position - it’s doubtful that she was alone in the pro gradu -crafting club during a time when online plagiarism detection systems were merely science fiction.

Plagiarism is the tip of the iceberg of research misconduct. Finnish National Board on Research Integrity defines research misconduct as deliberate misleading of stakeholders, such as the research community or financiers, in research activity. In addition to plagiarism, other forms of misconduct are fabrication, falsification and misappropriation. In practice, fabrication means completely making things up with no basis in reality, and falsification means deliberate modifying or selection of research data in order to distort the result and to beautify the image. The most cunning form of research misconduct is - great artists steal - direct misappropriation; presenting another person’s idea or data as one’s own. Misappropriation is nearly impossible to prove.

Having worked in research misconduct matters, physicist David Goodstein lists three motives that he has learned of in cases of scientific fraud:

1. Persons guilty of misconduct experienced career pressure. 2. Persons guilty of misconduct knew, or thought they knew, how the study would be concluded had they wanted to put in the effort to complete the study in an appropriate manner. 3. Persons guilty of misconduct were researchers in fields in which results of singular studies weren’t required to be fully reproducible.

Goodstein mentions biology as an example of a field which, according to him, holds a top spot in research misconduct, as the field is highly competitive and full reproduction of results is impossible due to biological organisms’ individual differences.

STEM CELL TALES

Fact: the best ideas come in the shower. A calm and relaxing bathroom moment also helped the young Japanese stem cell researcher who quickly became notorious, Haruko Obokata, to come up with a system to produce pluripotent stem cells (highly multi-capable cells able to specialise as practically any functional cell.)

”Plagiarism is the tip of the iceberg of research misconduct.

She claims that she had her epiphany while in the bathtub one evening pondering over whether pluripotent stem cells could be produced from mammalian cells by putting them under intense stress - ambient conditions nearly lethal to cells. Without delving into details of the case or stem cell research, relatively inexpensive and ethical production of such cells would indicate groundbreaking development in the medical field. A peer reviewed article co-authored by Obokata on a production system of pluripotent stem cells was published in 2014 in the Vogue of science; the Nature -publication, which is highly selective in who gets to grace its pages.

A bright research career in a highly competitive field of science was within young Obokata’s reach. Then the rug was pulled out from under her. Word-for-word plagiarism of the United States’ health authorities’ website about the nature of stem cells was detected in a previously published dissertation defence by Obokata. For the published articles Obokata had ended up plagiarising herself; a picture of claimed pluripotent cells was fully identical to a picture appearing in Obokata’s dissertation defence. Either the study based on the article was never conducted or results were not obtained. The articles were retracted five months after their publication.

The previously described bathtub moment was reportedly an epiphany experienced by Obokata’s former employer and colleague, the developer of the STAP-cell theory, Charles Vacant’s brother Martin Vacant regarding an adult stem cell theory separately developed by the brothers. Obokata’s case has been written about a lot - for example, an article on the stem cell scandal written by Dana Goodyear sheds more light on Obokata’s case from the perspective of the world of science production and the pressures young researchers may face in the field. AN UNTIDY ENVIRONMENT CORRELATES WITH RACIST BEHAVIOUR AND OTHER SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY TALES

Diedrik Stapel, a Dutch social psychologist, was notorious in his field. His studies on human behaviour and attitudes were published in a publication similar to Nature; the Science -journal.

In the spring of 2011, Science published an article on Stapel’s recent study, according to which an untidy environment evokes racist behaviour in people.

Around the same time, another article was published in Stapel’s name, according to which eating meat makes people more selfish and less social. In the same year, two of Stapel’s postgraduate students suspected him of research misconduct. Unlike is normal in research projects, the postgraduate students working in Stapel’s laboratories were never allowed to participate in Stapel’s studies, for example, in the role of a data collector, or to see Stapel’s research data.

Stapel himself had enough and turned himself in; no study was ever conducted. Several years of data, research locations, test subjects, as well as everything else related to Stapel’s studies, were all fabricated. During his career, Stapel supervised over 20 dissertation defences, many based on the professor’s own completely made up data. Perhaps Stapel’s field, social psychology, which rarely produces figures that can be neatly laid out in Excel-spreadsheets, or crystal clear recognisability of studies, led the professor to cut corners. Stapel responded to The New York Times that he was frustrated with disorderly research data (apparently he had produced some of it) and it rarely leading to clear conclusions.

PRO FORMA

Vipin Kumar and James L. Urban, postgraduate students of biology working in the same molecular biology laboratory in the late 1980s, both committed misconduct in their work - while unaware of each other. According to Kumar, he wanted to make a Southern blot- figure representing DNA-sequences (Southern blot - a molecular biology technique to enhance desired DNA-sequences) more appealing by copying one image multiple times in the same image to make it look like at a quick glance there are multiple different figures. Basically, Kumar used the image to present more data than actually existed.

When asked, he pleaded ignorance of not being allowed to copy the images.

The case of James Urban who worked in the same laboratory was uncovered by coincidence while the scientific community was investigating Kumar’s case. Urban submitted an article on MS (Multiple Sclerosis) in mice for a peer review, with fabricated data; research was not conducted at all, as Urban had merely guessed the figures. Urban claimed to know what the findings of the study would be had he actually conducted it. He also claimed time pressure and that he dealt with it in his own way by quickly typing up the data without conducting a complicated study. He also claimed that he had intended to collect real data and replace the fabricated data with it before the publishing of the article. The article was published in the Cell -journal in 1989.

NO RESULTS, NO KNOWLEDGE

According to psychologist Stuart Richie, the positive result paradox is one of science’s stumbling blocks; what is counted as successful research, and thus deemed suitable for publication in scientific journals, are studies that produce new knowledge. The numerous everyday failings in science, which either way make the building of new scientific knowledge possible, aren’t paraded on the lines of journals or between them - they end up nowhere nor do they advance researchers’ careers. It’s certainly easier - and more soothing for the mind - to think that your work is counting for something, rather than to toss your inconclusive data along with the background work into the shredder and admit that the work has been useless. The “must get results” -mentality may lead to intentional or unintentional tampering with the data so that there are results, peace of mind is maintained, and the financiers are happy. At the end of the day, everything a human being ends up obtaining depends on their actions - and the problems that come with them.