After firing a professor last month for fabricating research data, Massachusetts Institute of Technology administrators said they will not make any changes to the university’s policies regarding research misconduct.
Luk Van Parijs, a 35-year-old associate professor of biology, left MIT in late October after he made a claim about the genetic modification of mice that could not be documented. According to The Boston Globe, Van Parijs fabricated data and falsified results in a “misleading way.”
Charlene Placido, MIT’s assistant dean for research, said MIT’s policies for weeding out researchers who commit misconduct — defined as fabrication, falsification or plagiarism — are adequate and the university does not plan to change them.
Researchers, spurred by the lure of hefty research grants — ranging from a few thousand to several million dollars — and personal promotions, sometimes falsify or fabricate data that is published in journals or presented to committees charged with reviewing their work. And private institutions are required to follow federal guidelines to detect research misconduct and punish scientists who commit fraud.
The federal government’s Office of Research Integrity receives about 200 allegations of research misconduct a year, of which about 30 warrant inquiries or investigations, said Director Chris Pascal. However, he said, most allegations of misconduct are made at private institutions.
The ORI, which is responsible for investigating allegations of academic misconduct for scientists applying for certain federal grants, defines academic misconduct and prescribes guidelines for private institutions that deal with allegations of misconduct.
Scientists who are found guilty of falsifying, fabricating or plagiarizing results could face supervision when conducting future research, or, in rare cases, could be denied research grants altogether, Pascal said.
According to Susan Frey, Boston University’s assistant provost for research compliance and health information privacy, BU receives many allegations of incorrect or fraudulent data, but “many are not fraud.”
Until a couple years ago, institutions were required to annually report all allegations to national science institutes, Frey said. Now, instead of reporting allegations that could be insubstantial, universities are required to report investigations, Pascal said.
BU spokesman Colin Riley said he does not know of any serious cases of research fraud at BU.
“This is a very rare thing,” Riley said. “Few, if any, get to the final stage [of an investigation]. There is no concern that the policies in place are not satisfactory.”
BU’s policies and procedures regarding allegations of research misconduct are outlined on the university’s website. Riley noted that the university adheres to federal guidelines and added that policies for handling research misconduct should be consistent at area universities.
Researchers said egregious cases of research fraud are rare, and they rarely escape notice because the science community always scrutinizes published findings.
“It’s very hard to keep fraud secret for very long,” said Kenneth Janes, a College of Arts and Sciences professor of astronomy. “Eventually, shoddy research almost always gets found out.”
Janes said BU’s rigorous review process includes many safeguards to prevent research misconduct. He said that he reviews half a dozen papers per year, adding that while mistakes in research are common, fraud is not.
“Some people cut corners and try to get ahead because there’s a financial incentive,” Janes added.
Francis Monette, a CAS professor of biology, said that when blatant cases of fraud occur, they are widely exposed — and they should be.
“I don’t think there can be too much press for scientific fraud,” he said. “It’s intolerable.
“Science polices itself,” Monette continued, explaining that if scientific results cannot be duplicated, they should be investigated further for possible fraud or errors.
But Monette admitted that it is impossible to catch all cases of misconduct.