Scientific Integrity

Table of contents

Foreword Introduction

Chapter 1 Scientific integrity: an exploration of an elusive concept 1.1 Discredited by fraud 1.2 Integrity as a standard linked to one’s position 1.3 Integrity as a standard for one’s own behavior 1.4 Scientific values and the basic standards of integrity 1.5 Scientific integrity in practice: an initial exploration

Chapter 2 The codification of behavioral standards for scientific research 2.1 Muddying the waters of science: the Stapel affair 2.2 Some examples of fraud 2.3 Four conceptual distinctions 2.4 The emergence of norms in scientific practice 2.5 A case study: the codification of norms in the Netherlands 2.6 The Netherlands Code of Conduct for Scientific Practice of 2004/2012/2014 2.7 The Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity of 2018

Foreword

In 2006, I was asked by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences president at the time, Frits van Oostrom, to serve as chairman of the Netherlands Board on Research Integrity (LOWI). Out of a desire to contribute to the general cause, I accepted. At first, the job wasn’t so demanding, but after a few high-profile cases of scientific fraud came to light, the workload became significantly heavier. My term ended on January I, 2015, but the subject of “scientific integrity” has continued to fascinate me, and I’ve been exploring it in various ways ever since.

I guess you can say I have been studying scientific integrity for a long time. I have read a great deal of scientific literature on the topic, and over the years, I’ve collected countless articles from newspapers and magazines about fraud cases all over the world. This study is a report of my findings.

This book has become an analysis of the norms and values behind integrity and honesty in science and of their development since the mid-1980s. Around 1985, there was a shift in both the views on and the structure of scientific research. In the Netherlands, this shift coincided with the introduction of the system of conditional funding for scientific research (between 1981 and 1985), the institutionalization of PhD research, and the establishment of a system for research institutes (from 1986).

This study details the development of the new rules established in various codes of conduct for scientific practice and the way in which suspected violations are evaluated and addressed. From 2006 to 2015, I participated in the evaluation ofa large number of suspected violations of scientific integrity submitted to the LOWI. Thus, I myself have contributed to the interpretation of the rules and codes of conduct. However, this study is a reflection of my own personal views and appraisals. In no way does it represent the official position of the LOWI or any other body. That said, I do regularly refer to the LOWI’s opinions, which are published in anonymized form on its website (https://www.lowi.nl/en/ Opinions?set_language=en).

The first reason for releasing a revised version of this study was the publication of a new Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity in 2018, which is discussed in Chapter 2. With this update, this study can offer a contribution to future discussions on scientific integrity that may arise as a result of the 2018 Code.

A second reason was the need for an English edition. There is a strong desire at Dutch universities to communicate the standards of scientific ethics and integrity to students at all levels, from Bachelor to PhD, and English is the international language of science. It was Maghiel van Crevel, professor of Chinese language and literature at Leiden University, who submitted an urgent request to publish the new version in English. I am therefore very grateful to Maghiel for insisting on this translation and spontaneously supporting it. He has done me a great service with his many comments to improve and clarify the text, for which this acknowledgment is simply not enough. I am grateful to Leiden University, in particular to the Graduate School of the Faculty of Humanities, for their financial support for this publication. And I would particularly like to thank Anniek Meinders of Leiden University Press for her unfailing belief in and support for this publication in its original and revised form, in Dutch and in English.

I would also like to recognize the many people who, directly or indirectly, have helped me to form my opinions and standpoints on the sensitive subject of scientific integrity. First ofall, my thanks and gratitude go to the LOWI members, former members and staff, with whom I have had extremely interesting discussions about many aspects related to scientific integrity and the many ways in which it has been violated.

Finally, I would like to recognize a number of people who have helped me write this study and its latest revision. First of all, I would like to thank the translator Kristen Gehrman for her excellent work and the very pleasant way in which we have untangled the many translation knots. I am also very grateful to Adriénne Baars-Schuyt, who provided professional and meticulous comments on my manuscripts, as she did for the first and second edition. Given the specific subjects addressed in this book, one of which was proper source-referencing, this was a crucial task. Finally, I’d like to thank my wife, Trees Schuyt-van Etten. In my first book, published in 1971, I thanked her for the “piano of her soul”. Now, after all of these years, I’d like to thank her for the time she has given me and for allowing me to devote so much of my time to the subject of scientific integrity.

Kees Schuyt Voorburg, June 2, 2019

Introduction

The subject of scientific integrity has generated a lot of attention in recent decades, both in the media— which is all too happy to report on the latest fraud or plagiarism scandal—and in the boardrooms of the scientific institutions that have to respond to it. In the meantime, scientific research has continued, but researchers have become more attuned to the fact that scientific integrity is something they need to pay attention to in their laboratories and research institutes. Then came the question as to whether we should add courses in scientific ethics and integrity to university curricula, which are already full as it is. New courses for students and novice researchers have been established in recent years, creating a demand for teaching material on scientific integrity. But can integrity be learned? Or is it more a matter of gaining experience, following good examples and having outstanding scientific researchers as role models? This is one of the questions that will be addressed in this study.

This book is not designed to serve as a curriculum for prospective students or novice researchers. Although I know there is a need for this, I do not feel called to address all the possible ethical cases, dilemmas and temptations inherent to scientific research and explain how young researchers should respond to each one. Moreover, there are already plenty of good textbooks available on this topic (Macrima 2005; Comstock 2013; On Being a Scientist 2012). It is true that dilemmas can arise in the application of rules, especially when rules are not clearly formulated. However, I believe that the standards of scientific research are already clear enough: always present research results truthfully and never copy the work of others without properly referencing the source. These basic standards are not that difficult. How to uphold these standards is something that one learns from experience and from the good example of teachers, supervisors and experienced researchers. These veterans in the field are responsible for passing on their experience and scientific attitude to their students, colleagues and successors.

This study is also not intended as a policy paper, although I do believe that universities in the Netherlands need a more conscious policy on scientific integrity. Over the past few years, I have been surprised by the lack of interest the Dutch universities have shown for this subject, even though many scientists and administrators consider it an important issue. Two studies that have served as shining examples are The Ethics of Science by David Resnik (1998) and The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science by science historian Horace Freeland Judson (2004). Almost anything one would like to know about scientific integrity and responsible conduct for scientific research can be found in these two works; yet, as far as I could tell, neither of them have been widely consulted. Both books have served as an example for me in writing this book, and I have made extensive use of the authors’ knowledge, experience and insights. They are often quoted because, as Marcel Proust put it, “One must never miss an opportunity of quoting things by others, which are always more interesting than those one thinks up oneself” (quoted by De Botton 2000: 49; Vanheste 2012: 16).

This book is primarily intended for the academic community. The centuries-old concept of ‘community’ in academia is under pressure at universities from new terms derived from bureaucracy and economics. Traditionally, an academic community consists of scientists—who conduct research and teach—their students, Deans, research supervisors, librarians, library users, university administrators and treasurers. All of these individuals are faced with integrity issues from time to time and many have probably asked themselves what exactly integrity means and how it can be promoted within their community.

Integrity is based on the trust that exists among the members of an organization; it is this trust that makes an organization a community. If trust is lacking or at risk of being lost, honest behavior becomes more difficult to sustain. Eventually, the community is forced to reflect on its actions and formulate its own standards of honest behavior. This study aims to make a small contribution to this task by outlining and analyzing the developments in the field of scientific integrity over the past decades. I hope that readers will be able to decide for themselves how they wish to exhibit scientific integrity in science and research. Thus, this study is not a textbook but a kind of scientific essay from which one can draw inspiration for one’s own work.

Introduction

But what exactly is scientific integrity? And why should we care about it? What are the issues at stake? What do we know about the nature and extent of these issues, and what do they tell us about the overall health of the scientific field? In this book, I will explore the general concept of integrity, describe the social values behind it, and apply those values to science specifically (Chapter 1). I will then formulate two basic standards of scientific integrity, against the background of the establishment of codes of conduct for scientific practice, including the most recent such code in the Netherlands (Chapter 2). Thereafter I will focus on fraud and other forms of dishonest behavior in scientific research and, in doing so, address the difficult question of whether or not scientific integrity violations have increased (Chapter 3). Chapter 4 outlines how suspected scientific integrity violations are handled in the Netherlands. In Chapters 5 and 6, I delve into more specific topics, such as the definition of plagiarism and self-plagiarism (Chapter 5) and the important distinction between sloppy science and dishonest research (Chapter 6). Finally, in Chapter 7, I examine the university system of self-regulation and consider how we can pass down the scientific spirit—of which integrity is a crucial part—to the next generation of researchers.

My personal assessment of the self-regulatory system for addressing scientific integrity complaints in Dutch universities is not entirely positive. In my opinion, the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Scientific Practice of 2004/2012/2014 and the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity of 2018 leave too many questions about what exactly is and is not “against the rules” of scientific practice unanswered, which has resulted in all kinds of vague, unnecessary complaints about suspected integrity violations.

If this book contributes to a deeper awareness of the importance of scientific integrity within the academic community, it has met my goal.

Chapter 1 1.1 DISCREDITED BY FRAUD

The growing interest in scientific integrity is a testament to a broader cultural trend: honesty is no longer self-evident as a core value of professional activity. In the Netherlands, integrity has become an important issue in various sectors. Since 1992, the theme of professional integrity has been the subject of numerous scientific studies, including one on the integrity policy of the Dutch police (Lamboo, 2005; Huberts 2005). But this focus on professional integrity has not prevented serious integrity violations at all levels of the Dutch police force from occurring over the last decade. Political integrity became a problem as well. Politicians from various parties have been found guilty of dishonesty and had to leave their posts. The construction and real estate sectors have also had their share of fraud cases, bringing the issue of professional integrity further into focus (House of Representatives Acts 2002-2003, 28244). Since the 2008 economic crisis, the issue of integrity and fraud in the financial and banking sectors has been on the political agenda. Apparently, some practitioners in these sectors are under the impression that fraud pays off. Scandals such as those involving Madoff (Stewart 2011), the Lehmann Brothers (McDonald and Robinson 2009) and other lucrative enterprises have prompted new measures against financial fraud in the United States. Major financial fraud and money laundering scandals at the Royal Bank of Scotland, the Rabobank of Europe and the ING bank of the Netherlands, have called the professional integrity of top-level European executives into question as well.

In the Netherlands, we have seen serious cases of fraud in housing corporations, health care and special education funding. These cases have mostly involved the financial conduct and judgment of professional service providers. Social security fraud is another issue that has received a lot of attention in recent years, and the penalties have increased dramatically. The integrity of lawyers, public prosecutors, judges and notaries has been called into question following a number of notable cases in which rules of honor were violated. In the Catholic Church as well, we’ve seen long-concealed cases of sexual abuse come to light in recent decades, and a European chapter on sexual abuse in the church has been created as a result. Other cases of sexual abuse in the church have emerged in Ireland, the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany and other countries as well. And let’s not forget all the scandals that have emerged in the world of professional sports, especially the numerous doping cases that have emerged in recent years. Anyone who wishes to compare today’s scientific world to that of professional sports should know what such a comparison suggests: that winning is all that matters, by whatever means necessary. All of these cases raise questions about whether existing norms and deep-rooted values are still present in society and whether people still take them seriously.

In his Theory of Justice, philosopher John Rawls makes a general remark about the relationship between trust and integrity: “In times of social doubt and loss of faith in long-established values, there is a tendency to fall back on the virtues of integrity: truthfulness and sincerity, lucidity and commitment, or as some say, authenticity” (Rawls, 1971: 519-520). One might ask whether there will be a large-scale crisis of trust in social institutions in the first decades of the twenty-first century. Of course, such a broad question cannot be answered in such a small study, but I do wonder.

It is therefore unsurprising that the interest in scientific integrity has increased. One case that attracted a great deal of attention in the US was the “Baltimore affair”, which involved suspected research fraud by an employee of Nobel Prize-winning biologist David Baltimore. From 1986 to 1996, this case had a direct and indirect impact on the professional lives of many scientists and academics. Since the fraud was carried out with taxpayer money, members of the US Congress got involved. In 1989, the US government established an Office of Scientific Integrity, which was renamed the National Office of Research Integrity in 1992. The Baltimore affair would eventually become the subject of several extensive reports by the National Academy of

Sciences and numerous individual studies (Kevles 1998; Freeland Judson 2004: 191-243).

Scientific integrity concerns all areas of science, not just research funded by the government. Following a much-discussed plagiarism case in the Netherlands (the Diekstra affair, 1996-1998), three Dutch organizations, the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU), and the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) joined forces in 2001 to address the issue of scientific integrity. In May 2003, the Netherlands Board on Research Integrity (LOWI) was established, and a code of conduct for scientific researchers was drawn up. This code, known as the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Scientific Practice, was first published in 2004 and went into effect on January 1, 2005 (with revisions in 2012 and 2014; hereafter, for convenience it will mostly be referred to as the “2004/2012/2014 Code”). In other countries, such as Norway, Denmark and England, a similar trend has been observed: a high-profile scientific fraud occurs and then governments and universities are compelled to take action. But is this all too little too late? And what is scientific integrity anyway?

1.2 INTEGRITY AS A STANDARD LINKED TO ONE'S POSITION

Scientific integrity falls under the umbrella of scientific ethics. In addition to integrity and honesty, scientific ethics includes issues such as the treatment of animals, the handling of subjects and patients, the permissibility of certain research methods (e.g. in the case of cloning and stem cell research), and the propriety of client relationships. Of these various aspects of scientific ethics, this study will focus primarily on the role of integrity. Client relationships are only mentioned in the context of commissioned research.

On the whole, I consider integrity to be a social value that is linked to one’s role in society. Each profession has its own standards of conduct, which may vary according to the social context in which its practitioners operate. The definition of misconduct is linked to this context. For example:

— Officials may not accept money or favors for certain services or to help sway decisions. They may not use their position to distribute favors or offer jobs to friends, relatives or business partners outside of the standard regulations.

— Doctors have a universal duty to help anyone in mortal danger, regardless of his or her nationality or of enmity; they are also bound by standards of professional confidentiality.

— Lawyers are also bound by standards of professional confidentiality and have a duty to maintain both professional and financial independence from their clients; thus, any funds entrusted to their care must be kept strictly separate from their own affairs.

— Judges must remain impartial at all times. They may not, as Judge Azdak in Bertolt Brecht’s classic play The Caucasian Chalk Circle, use the seat of justice to serve private interests (Brecht 1955; 2003: go) or accept gifts from grateful citizens.

— Priests must uphold the values of their office. If they have taken an oath of celibacy, they are banned from all forms of sexual contact. This code of conduct is only applicable in the context of their faith, as there would be no reason to impose celibacy on the general public.

— Journalists have a duty to truthfully report what they see, hear, or otherwise gather as newsworthy facts; this can result in specific problems for spin doctors and embedded journalists aiming to convey a specific message.

— The business community has developed its own standards for handling bribes and established rules to prevent conflicts of interest and insider trading, but the use of lies and deceit in ordinary sales and purchases is less strictly regulated. When it comes to selling used cars or other items, for example, the caveat emptor is that all sales are at the buyer’s own risk, no matter how naive he or she may be.

All of these examples illustrate how integrity is linked to specific standards, which are derived from the institution’s core values. These values tend to vary from one social sector to another; this is to be expected in an open society where people have different tasks and roles. Thus, it goes without saying that values in academia differ from those in other sectors of society. However, this can create tension, particularly when leaders from other sectors—for example, politicians— with different values and interests interfere with scientific research or try to impose their values on it. In this study, integrity is narrowly understood as the maintenance of standards linked to specific social positions, and not as, for example, compliance with general legal obligations that already apply to all citizens, regardless of where they live or work.

In society, there is nothing wrong with inventing a story and calling ita work of fiction. In science, however, inventing research data constitutes a major violation of the standards of responsible scientific behavior. Thus, in literature, fabulation is a norm; whereas in science, itis a violation of a norm. A classic example of this (which will be discussed later) is the case of Cyril Burt, a British psychologistwho was found guilty of fabricating research data from 1952 to 1962. Of course, this is not to say that scientists are not allowed to use the power of their imagination to formulate new hypotheses, but they have to make sure their fantasies are not presented as facts.

There are plenty of instances where it is perfectly acceptable to copy other people’s words. For example, it’s not unusual to retell someone else’s joke without mentioning the source. In journalism, press releases are often copied word-for-word without reference to the source. And in the church, old sermons from predecessors are sometimes reused. Government ministers will often adopt texts written by civil servants in their entirety and publish them under their own names at the end of their term in office; this is a generally accepted practice. And in the judiciary, copying judgments written by colleagues is far from forbidden. In fact, many judges prefer to copy the words of others because a departure from widely accepted formulations can raise questions. These are all cases in which the literal copying of others’ texts is not regarded as a problem. In science, however, copying is not permitted, at least not without properly acknowledging the source.

1.3 INTEGRITY AS A STANDARD FOR ONE'S OWN BEHAVIOR

Although there has been plenty of talk about integrity, there are only a few studies that delve into what the concept actually means and where it comes from. The Latin word integer was initially used in a quantitative sense to mean ‘whole’ (i.e. whole numbers), ‘undamaged’, ‘untouched’, ‘unharmed’ and ‘complete down to the last detail’. But according to the classicist Cornelis Verhoeven, around the time of Cicero it took on a qualitative meaning of ‘honest’, ‘inaccessible to corruption’ and ‘incorruptible’ (Verhoeven 2002: 208). Around the same time, the poet Horace used the words integer vitae in one of his famous Odes (1, 22), which would be translated by Piet Schrijvers as “whose way of life is free from evil deeds” (Horace, tr. Schrijvers 2003: 232 and 233). In Cicero’s De Officiis, the term integer is used as well, this time in the sense of “living in accordance with nature” (Cicero, Book III: 3: 13). Cicero notes that honest people are called to govern the masses and to protect the weak from injustice. He refers to Socrates, who said that the most direct way to a good reputation is to “be the person we wish to be” (Book II: 12: 41-43; translation Higginbotham 1967: 113-114; Beebe 1995: 7-16). The essence of integrity lies in the intrinsic motivation to follow virtue, not in the desire to use it as an instrument of self-interest (Book III: 33: 18; Higginbotham, 1967: 182). In this sense, the concept of integrity is still present in moral philosophy today.

In his description of integrity, the Anglo-American philosopher Bernard Williams emphasizes the responsibility one feels for one’s own behavior, regardless of its usefulness or benefit and regardless of the behavior of others or the demands that others make of you:

“a consideration involving the idea, as we might first and very simply put it, that each of us is specially responsible for what he does, rather than for what other people do. This is an idea closely connected with the value of integrity” (Williams 1973; 10" edition, 1993: 99).

In other words, integrity is about commitment—the commitment that one makes to one’s own chosen values. These values provide a moral identity to which one’s behavior can be attuned, and the commitment to these values brings unity to one’s thoughts, desires and actions. In my opinion, Williams’s general description of integrity can be applied to scientific integrity as well. Although certain aspects of his notion of integrity have been criticized (cf. Fleischacker 1992: 227-231; Markovits 2009), it includes two aspects that are widely accepted. First, integrity is part of a whole; it’s a plan or project that lasts a lifetime. Secondly, having integrity means that one does not carry out actions that are directly in conflict with one’s values. In other words, when people with integrity fail to adhere to their own values, they can’t bear to look at themselves in the mirror. Other writers note that integrity involves taking responsibility for one’s own actions and speaking and acting with conviction (Carter 1996).

The Oxford English Dictionary defines integrity as “the quality of being honest and morally upright” and as “the state of being whole or unified” (OED 2012). In other words, integrity is striving for honesty, sincerity and truthfulness, or freedom from moral corruption. “Scientists have intellectual integrity insofar as they strive to follow the highest standards of evidence and reasoning in their quest to obtain knowledge and avoid ignorance” (Resnik, 1998: 84). Integrity leads to mutual trust. In her short introduction to Research Integrity and Responsible Conduct of Research, Ann Nichols-Casebolt refers to a definition provided by the Institute of Medicine in 2002: “Integrity in the conduct of research has been defined as an individual’s commitment to intellectual honesty and personal responsibility that embraces excellence, trustworthiness and lawfulness” (Nichols-Casebolt, 2012: 3-4; Institute of Medicine, 2002).

The fact that integrity as a social value has received so much more attention over the past decade isn’t all that surprising. I suspect that this isn’t only due to the rise in high-profile integrity violations, coupled with diminished trust in various social institutions (e.g. churches, banks, politics and government, science), but also—and perhaps even more so—due to the effect that so many rapid changes have had on people’s personal identities. Grudin notes: “More than a virtue or group of virtues, integrity is an affirmation of self in a world where the defining outline of an individual often seems to be no more than a transparent and absorbent membrane between impersonal inner and outer forces” (Grudin, 1982: 48). According to Grudin, the characteristics of integrity are trust in oneself, stability of character, and spiritual perseverance. These qualities do not manifest themselves in a single instance of behavior, but in a series of challenges that take on different forms (idem: 47-48). The result is unity between one’s internal standards and external behavior. People of integrity demonstrate a conscious consistency in their thoughts and actions, which persists over time. But just because someone has integrity does not mean that he or she is a superhero. Even honest people will be surprised, frustrated or confused from time to time. However, they are less likely to fall victim to morally compromising circumstances. A person of integrity is prepared for anything and always ready to act appropriately (Grudin, 1982: 51; 1990: 73-75).

When it comes to understanding the concept of scientific integrity, I find Williams’s description— ‘consciously choosing to take responsibility for one’s own behavior’— particularly useful because it implies that integrity is not bound by external pressures. It is also separate from the behavior and exhortations of others. This emphasis on autonomy is characteristic of most professions (doctors, lawyers, architects, etc.), but it also offers a good characterization of scientific research as a specific profession. Approximately 5% of all university graduates go on to pursue a career in science and research (Chion Meza 2012). The integrity required for such a profession must be personally internalized as a standard for one’s own behavior: “This is howI want to behave; this is how I should behave; this is how I will behave.”

In some professions, this promise is actually verbalized at the start of one’s career in the form of a professional oath, for example the attorney’s oath or the Hippocratic oath (Houtzager 2004: 11-26). Would such an oath also be useful in the academic and scientific world? If so, when should it be taken? At the beginning of one’s university studies, at the onset ofa research project or upon graduation? Obviously, people aren’t born with an internal standard of integrity. They are born with the ability to internalize cultural influences, which may later be reflected in their behavior. These cultural influences can lead to exemplary behavior among professional colleagues, who in turn can serve as sociological role models for others, particularly young people. Ultimately, they can internalize this behavior as well. This process of internalization, which goes beyond social control or the fear of punishment, is, in my view, crucial to the development of scholarly attitudes and scientific integrity. The scientific and academic community have an important role to play in this, namely in promoting the values of scholarship through role models (mentors, lecturers, promoters, research leaders) and passing them on to younger generations (see Chapter 7).

1.4 SCIENTIFIC VALUES AND THE BASIC STANDARDS OF INTEGRITY

Anyone who chooses to enter a scientific field is also choosing to accept the specific values inherent to science. There is a higher demand for honesty and transparency in science than in everyday life, where a little lie can sometimes be justified. But given that science is primarily concerned with developing its own truths, which can sometimes be diametrically opposed to social judgments or prejudices, it is important to consider the way in which scientific truths are formulated. Science has developed its own values, which are generally associated with openness, honesty, scrupulousness, objectivity, an unbiased attitude, independence and a love of truth. Take the example set by two well-known sociologists, Max Weber and Robert K. Merton. Shortly after the First World War, Weber described the choice to enter the scientific field as one that should be approached with great care. The scientific profession adheres to specific values; itis a profession with a special ethos, quite unlike any other choice of profession. Weber drew a sharp contrast between Wissenschaft als Beruf [science as a profession], which is characterized by the independent and constant search for knowledge and truth, and Politik als Beruf [politics as a profession], which involves the pursuit and exercise of power. In his view, knowledge and power are two social values that are fundamentally opposed (Weber, 1919; cf. Spinner 1985).