|||
科学网新闻网页上发布了题为“美两名科学家被查出伪造实验数据”的新闻。我看了以后,又找到美国《科学家》网站的原文和评论读了一遍。读了之后,我觉得我们更有理由认为,轻描淡写式地处理是科学造假泛滥的重要原因。
“据《科学家》杂志报道,美国科学诚信办公室(ORI)近日报告,美国2名肾脏研究人员涉嫌谎报动物实验方法和伪造实验数据,涉及过去8年来共16篇论文和多篇基金申请。
这2名科学家,Judith Thomas 和Juan Contreras,之前均就职于阿拉巴马大学伯明翰分校(UAB),后者曾在前者手下做博士后。二人不实地报告他们在多个实验中完成了猕猴双肾移除,这些实验用来测试2种免疫抑制药物(免疫毒素FN18-CRM9和15-DSG)在阻止单肾移植排斥反应方面的效力。
UAB负责研究的副校长Richard Marchase说,实验程序应该是先移除一个天然肾,用一个移植肾进行替换,并对猕猴开始施用免疫抑制剂;一个月后再移除另一个天然肾,“而在Thomas和Contreras所做的大量实验中,他们从未进行第二步手术”。这样,留下一个完整的天然肾会让实验动物存活并加大测试药物的外观效力。
……”
这两人都是搞肾脏移植免疫抑制药物疗效研究的,他们的研究结果直接关系到病人的生命安全,所以有理由给予更多的关注。这两人的造假,涉及过去8年来共16篇论文和多篇基金申请。《科学家》杂志原文中提到了这两人从NIH获得基金的总额:2300万美元!
2300万美元相当于1.5亿人民币!中国人民要为美国人民做多少双鞋子和袜子,美国人民才能赚到这么多的美元?(别以为这些钱是美国政府出的。美国政府早就“资不抵债”了。这些损失,很可能要中国或印度尼西亚的老百姓来最后买单的。)
数额巨大,影响恶劣,直接危及病人生命安全,应该说情节相当严重。但是,从新闻上看,对他们的惩罚仅仅是他们被迫从他们任职的大学辞职(仅仅是辞职),在若干年内不能申请美国政府的钱。
不想多说了。我们看看《科学家》美国网友的评论:
评论之一:惩罚!
浪费了2300万美元却能自由走开?我认为这些人应该被关到监狱里去。为拯救这个国家,是到了对这种白领犯罪采取严厉措施的时候了。
评论之二:罪犯!
不用再说了!这些研究者是聪明的罪犯,他们从政府那里诈骗了成千万的美元,但8年来一直没被发现。
公司里的诈骗犯往往会得到漫长的判刑。这些科学的骗子也应该受到同样的刑罚。科学的骗局对无辜的受害者造成的损害甚至更严重……那些慢性病病人,或许在忍受着无用的治疗,或许根本没有得到什么治疗。 或许本来他们可以得到用这些被浪费的科研经费发展的真正有效的治疗的!我强烈呼吁将科研造假定为犯罪。
不用再说了。想想那些在实验室里苦苦劳作,暴露于有毒试剂,苦苦探索,却重复不出科学“假说”的科研工作者的悲惨命运;想想那些被假研究误导的,用无效药物治疗疾病的病人的悲惨命运。这些造假者难道不应该被更严厉地惩罚吗?
获得如此巨大的利益,如此严重的造假,花了如此长的时间才被查实的一个案件,当事人仅仅辞职就可以潇洒走开。社会的公正和正义何在?
美国政府的科学诚信办公室(ORI)是其人类健康和服务部的一个下属机构。这个机构实际上只有非常有限的行政资源和权力。这个监督管理全美国庞大科研经费是否合法使用的政府部门,只有寥寥几个雇员。这种状况,加上ORI本身的严重官僚化,使得他们的实际工作效率相当低下。ORI现在能做到的,只是每年例行公事般地不痛不痒地处理几个科研造假者。这种不痛不痒的“你3年内不能再从我这里骗钱”式的处罚,与其说是惩罚造假,不如说是鼓励造假。
现在科研造假现象如此严重,泛滥到了发生哈佛,耶鲁这种名校需包庇多囊肾(PKD)领域集体造假的这类事件,原因也许就在此。
最后,我就再引用一个美国网友对此事的评论:
“The truth got out this time because of the in-fighting between the two collaborators. God only knows how many other such cases are out there, where people involved are still in good terms. This is a depressing thought.”
一个Thomas走了,还有多少个Thomas “OUT THERE”在笑?
现将科学网上的新闻和美国《科学家》杂志的全文摘录如下: “据《科学家》杂志报道,美国科学诚信办公室(ORI)近日报告,美国2名肾脏研究人员涉嫌谎报动物实验方法和伪造实验数据,涉及过去8年来共16篇论文和多篇基金申请。 这2名科学家,Judith Thomas 和Juan Contreras,之前均就职于阿拉巴马大学伯明翰分校(UAB),后者曾在前者手下做博士后。二人不实地报告他们在多个实验中完成了猕猴双肾移除,这些实验用来测试2种免疫抑制药物(免疫毒素FN18-CRM9和15-DSG)在阻止单肾移植排斥反应方面的效力。 UAB负责研究的副校长Richard Marchase说,实验程序应该是先移除一个天然肾,用一个移植肾进行替换,并对猕猴开始施用免疫抑制剂;一个月后再移除另一个天然肾,“而在Thomas和Contreras所做的大量实验中,他们从未进行第二步手术”。这样,留下一个完整的天然肾会让实验动物存活并加大测试药物的外观效力。 Thomas和Contreras的研究受到美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)2300多万美元的资助。Marchase表示,Thomas最初声称是Contreras独自犯下不当行为,自己毫不知情。但UAB的调查最终显示,Thomas也参与了其中。 调查发现,2人共涉嫌在16篇论文和多篇NIH基金申请中伪造数据,时间跨度达8年之久。最初的一篇伪造论文于1998年发表在《移植》(Transplantation)期刊上,最近的一篇于2005年发表在《免疫学期刊》(Journal of Immunology)上。而2人最初在基金申请中伪造数据是在1999年提交给NIH的一份R01资助进度报告中。这16篇论文中的14篇已经被撤销,另外2篇也正在撤销的进程中。 Thomas之前是NIH国立过敏与传染病研究所(NIAID)董事会成员,事件曝光后,她于2008年1月10日辞去了UAB正教授职位,其时,她所领导的实验室里有6至10名研究生、技术人员和博士后。她还同意“自愿排除协议”,在此协议下,10年内她将不能接受任何来自美国政府的资助或担任美国公共卫生局(PHS)的顾问。 而Contreras则于7月6日辞去了他在UAB的助理教授职位,并且也与ORI达成了自愿协议,3年内不得接受政府资助和担任PHS顾问。此外,UAB还禁止他担任一些项目的PI(研究负责人)。这样,在ORI和UAB的双重处罚下,他获得研究职位的机会已非常渺茫,只好选择辞职。(科学网 梅进/编译)” |
==========================================
以下是The Scientists 网站上的原文及评论。
http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55823/
Renal Researchers Faked Data Two researchers conducting animal studies on immunosuppression lied about experimental methodologies and falsified data in 16 papers and several grants produced over the past 8 years, according to the Office of Research Integrity (ORI).
The scientists, Judith Thomas and Juan Contreras, formerly at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), falsely reported that they performed double kidney removals on several rhesus macaques in experiments designed to test the effectiveness of two immune suppressing drugs -- Immunotoxin FN18-CRM9 and 15-deoxyspergualin (15-DSG) -- in preventing rejection of the a single transplanted kidney. |
Return to Top
comment:
Random Audits of Research Papers Are Needed to Protect the Public Against Research Fraud
by Raquel Diaz-Sprague
[Comment posted 2009-07-15 09:42:43]
Back in the early 90?s when scientific research fraud was rare, or at least rarely reported, I organized and convened a series of conferences on Ethics in Science, Technology and Medicine to be standalone events or at professional society meetings. See http://awisco.osu.edu/SpecialEvents.html. The conferences were well attended and generated a lot of discussion. Professional societies have the duty to foster discussion of professional misconduct and to promote ethical conduct in the professions. Although those efforts can serve as a deterrent to misconduct, it is clear they are not sufficient. Research fraud is no longer a rarity. There are numerous reports of abuse, deceit, research fraud, wrongdoing and other unethical behavior by individuals working in research, academia, government, etc. who are in positions of authority and privilege. The misuse of million of dollars and publication of faked research data which can mislead doctors and other researchers and cause suffering and death strikes me as criminal indeed. Criminalization of scientific fraud and severe penalties for the misuse of public funds are long overdue. Ethical principles, learned in high school and college, should inform the reasoning of every educated man or woman regarding the practice of their profession. Mandatory institutional training on the ethical conduct of research is still necessary but not sufficient. Fraud and other misconduct in research conducted with public funding should be subject to criminal and civil prosecution. Both the researchers AND their institutions should be penalized and required to make restitution of public funds. As one of the measures of success of a research institution is the number of dollars it receives in grants, currently institutions have a vested interest in denying wrongdoing and protecting researchers who receive government grants in order to continue to receive income from the grants. Only when it costs the institutions money, they will have an economic incentive to institutionalize effective measures to prevent and detect fraud. If fraud is detected and confirmed through random audits by the funding agencies, both the researchers and their institutions should face criminal charges. Those found guilty of fraud could be subject to progressive discipline in proportion to the gravity of the offenses committed. Their ability to work should be limited in the same manner other professionals have their licenses suspended or revoked for malpractice or malfeasance.
Reflecting on the growing national problem with fraud and deceit, it is obvious that our society has an extremely tolerant attitude toward misconduct misleadingly termed white collar crime. The name evokes the image of a person wearing a white shirt or other professional attire. A white lab coat inspires trust. With such innocuous image, mild name, and the absence of criminal penalties it is not surprising that white collar crime has proliferated and is currently at the root of our nation?s most serious problems. When politicians speak of being ?tough on crime? they play on popular but misleading stereotypes of what a ?real criminal? is. An example that comes to mind is; if we see a man on a dirty t-shirt on the street or the store, we probably try to keep away from him, hold tightly onto our purse or wallet and be somehow concerned that the person might be a ?criminal, who could steal from us.? If the same man is wearing a white shirt, the assumption might be that he is okay, not a threat. We are probably not likely to think about his potential for stealing from us ? big time ? from his desk or laboratory. Government has a duty to combat fraud and prevent harm to the public resulting from scientific as well as any other kind of fraud. Funding agencies must institute random audits of research findings at institutions receiving public funding. Professional societies could increase efforts to promote awareness and application of ethical principles in the professions and uphold the honor of the professions. But the mere existence of actual random audits of research papers with real individual and institutional financial penalties and possible imprisonment for the more serious offenses could compel researchers to conduct and report research in a most rigorous manner and keep all records of the data obtained as if it were evidence to be presented in court.
Return to Top
comment:
Grothendieck's statement on refusing Craaford prize
by anonymous poster
[Comment posted 2009-07-14 16:35:39]
"In the two decades that have intervened the ethical standards of the sciences ( certainly in mathematics) have been degraded to such an extent that the most bare-faced plagiarism between colleagues ( often at the expense of those who can't defend themselves), seems to have become the norm. At least it is generally tolerated, even in exceptionally flagrant instances..."
Return to Top
comment:
What is
by anonymous poster
[Comment posted 2009-07-14 16:26:18]
Faking data is clearly fraud. But what about "citation plagarism", arguably the most common abuse. That is, taking undue discovery credit.
This seems to be quite common these days. But nobody does anything about it. Complaints and even corrections to journals go unpublished, rather than rock the boat. In fact, "citation amnesia" seems to have become institutionalized at quite a high level.
E.g., Alexander Grothendieck, in turning down the Crafoord prize in mathematics, denounced the tendency of the powerful in mathematics to appropriate the ideas and discoveries of lessor lights. See:
http://pantelis.isaiah.googlepages.com/crafoordPrize.pdf
Return to Top
comment:
Patient's Rights
by anonymous poster
[Comment posted 2009-07-14 11:30:50]
The damage done to the patients should be addressed. Will the pharmaceutical companies inform the clinical trials of this fraudulent research? Will the patients ever find out what has happened? Personally, they are the one's who should be informed but will never hear a word. If they did, a lot of suits would follow and we can't have that, now can we!!!!!
Return to Top
comment:
This is an outrage.
by anonymous poster
[Comment posted 2009-07-14 09:30:22]
Thomas and Contreras have no place in medicine. They should be charged with attempted bodily harm and cruelness to animals. Where is the protection for patients and animals from monsters like this?
Return to Top
comment:
true colors
by Rick Bogle
[Comment posted 2009-07-13 22:34:16]
All the chatter about fraud, wasting money, possibly misleading other scientists, possibly putting patients at some risk, but not a word about the monkeys. Researchers routinely blather in public about how much they respect the animals they use and consider it a privilege to use them... but something like this comes along and no one mentions them.
Return to Top
comment:
Criminals
by JEROME GELB
[Comment posted 2009-07-13 20:41:10]
There is no two ways about it! These researchers are smart criminals who remained undetected for 8 years & defrauded funders of tens of millions of dollars.
Corporate fraudsters are receiving lengthy custodial sentences & so should scientific fraudsters, who potentially cause an even greater impact on innocent victims.......the chronically ill who may receive useless treatments or who never receive bonafide treatment that may have been developed with the wasted funds!
I add my voice LOUDLY to the calls for criminalisation of scientific fraud!
Return to Top
comment:
Research fraud needs to criminalised
by null null
[Comment posted 2009-07-13 18:17:09]
Fraud is a crime in most spheres. Science is less understood by the public than say politics, banking and car sales. Fraud in these areas is usually understood to damage society, reduce trust and can lead to reform.
Fraud in science leads to occassional furious wrist slapping and the brutal mild-grant-drought.
Deception in science needs to be criminalised. Then the real police can can act and enforce the law.
As it is, the laws of scientific integrity are mere guidelines. Enforcing scientific integrity currently is taken as seriously as enforcing bathroom etiquette.
As for the monkeys, they suffered for nothing. The researchers should be compelled to do an unfunded study quantifying the damage their work has done. Then they should go to a place where those who steal a kidney from butcher shop go...to court.
Return to Top
comment:
On falsifying data
by Mortimer Brown
[Comment posted 2009-07-13 16:35:05]
The only activity they should be allowed to perform in any scientific lab from now on is to keep the equipment and the bathrooms clean.
Return to Top
comment:
...other ramifications...
by anonymous poster
[Comment posted 2009-07-13 14:47:04]
ORI says: "The extent of misconduct with the widespread dispersion of falsified results had the effect of increasing the credibility of the respondents and thereby increasing the acceptance of the falsified results by other researchers in the field," wrote Abbrecht in the ORI statement. "Such acceptance could lead to wasted research effort by other researchers and possibly placing patients at harm if they were enrolled in clinical trials designed on the basis of the falsified results."
Protecting human subjects is the ultimate concern here, but in tough economic times, I have to wonder how much other research could have been funded with $23M. If you've ever been on the borderline with an index score of ~135-140 and just failed to make the "cut"... you know what I mean... L
Return to Top
comment:
Keep it coming!
by anonymous poster
[Comment posted 2009-07-13 14:46:23]
It's anyone's guess how many more fake articles there are in scientific publications.
Return to Top
comment:
Thomas and NIH Patron Hold Immunotoxin Use Patents
by Merrill Goozner
[Comment posted 2009-07-13 14:28:21]
see http://www.gooznews.com/node/3004
Good story. More sunshine on such cases is crucial to limiting scientific fraud, whatever its ultimate motivation.
Return to Top
comment:
Any Patients ?
by anonymous poster
[Comment posted 2009-07-13 14:12:19]
Could care less about the reputations of the authors & their grad students. Question I would ask is, did any patients get treatment based on the papers?
Outcome? Let the punishment fit the crime
Return to Top
comment:
Archives
by Alison McCook
[Comment posted 2009-07-13 14:04:55]
Hi-
As a news story, the article is free to anyone who has registered on our site. Currently, our policy leaves all news stories free to registered users indefinitely.
Thanks!
Alison McCook
Deputy Editor
Return to Top
comment:
Does UAB have to give the money back?
by anonymous poster
[Comment posted 2009-07-13 14:03:30]
Just curious.
Return to Top
comment:
Apropos a previous editorial...
by anonymous poster
[Comment posted 2009-07-13 13:59:26]
So, will The Scientist not archive this article to prevent further damage to the careers of these scientists when their punishment is up?
Return to Top
comment:
Punishment
by VENKAT BAKTHAVACHALAM
[Comment posted 2009-07-13 13:47:34]
Waste 23 millions of tax dollars and they go free? I think jail time is greatly warranted for these people. Isn't time to get tough on white collar crime to save this country?
Return to Top
comment:
God only knows
by anonymous poster
[Comment posted 2009-07-13 13:03:03]
The truth got out this time because of the in-fighting between the two collaborators. God only knows how many other such cases are out there, where people involved are still in good terms. This is a depressing thought.
Return to Top
comment:
Falsifying Data for Fame
by null null
[Comment posted 2009-07-13 12:38:45]
A deliberate atttempt to falsify data for Fame and acceptance is NOT acceptable and condonable. What a career damage to the trainees and postdocs of Dr. Thomas!!!!
I am not sure why it took so long as the rumors have been around for quite sometime about Dr. Thomas's findings.
Return to Top
comment:
shows ORI works -but no such ORI in Ag research
by anonymous poster
[Comment posted 2009-07-13 12:07:50]
This shows that the ORI - although with its cirtics - does work for the protection of science - and health of the people.
But in agriculture there is no such organization - and there is never resolution of such issues -until real investigations are done - with sequestering of the actual data and holding people accountable.
An example of such a situation can be found in the journal of animal science - several ( 12 ?) letters to the editor on reseach conducted by the pork board. One trial was a terminal sire line evaluation and in a paper the coauthors mentioned that they checked ther pedigrees of each sire and each was from a closed genetic popluation. But a fromer vet for one company testified in a letter to the editor and midwest univerisity that he was told to sample and did sample semen from 9 different genetic lines and has both internal and public documents.
One eye witness with any real data - in health field and steps are taken to resolve the issue -. Clear statements - and testimony - several letters to the editor in agriculture and nothing is done.
Archiver|手机版|科学网 ( 京ICP备07017567号-12 )
GMT+8, 2024-11-24 01:54
Powered by ScienceNet.cn
Copyright © 2007- 中国科学报社