http://www.medpagetoday.com/tbindex.cfm ... topicid=55AMA Supports Use of SSRIs for Treating Teen Depression
By Peggy Peck, Senior Editor, MedPage Today
June 21, 2005
CHICAGO, June 21-The American Medical Association agreed today that antidepressants such as Prozac (fluoxetine) are safe and effective therapies for
treating depression in teenagers.
http://www.boston.com/business/technolo ... 5/06/09/surveyed_scientists_admit_misconduct/
Surveyed scientists admit misconduct
One-third cite research tactics
By Gareth Cook, Globe Staff | June 9, 2005
A third of American biomedical scientists have engaged in questionable research practices, according to survey results released yesterday that raise questions about the integrity of the nation's multibillion-dollar quest to understand the human body and cure diseases.
[IF A THIRD ARE OPENLY ADMITTING MISCONDUCT, HOW MANY ARE ACTUALLY DOING IT?]
The study, based on a survey of about 3,000 government-funded scientists, is the first broad, quantitative examination of misconduct that asked researchers to admit their own misdeeds. The scientists, who participated anonymously, were asked whether they had done any of 33 actions in the three years before the 2002 survey. Asked about the most serious misconduct, 0.3 percent said they had falsified data, and 1.4 percent said they had used another's ideas without
gaining permission or giving credit. In addition, 15.5 percent said they had changed how they conducted an experiment or its results in response to pressure from a funding source, raising the prospect that companies are influencing scientific papers to support their commercial interests. The scientists also
admitted a range of other misdeeds, such as circumventing the rules on using human subjects in experiments, and not properly disclosing ties with companies.
''We found a striking level and breadth of misbehavior," said lead author Brian C. Martinson, a researcher at HealthPartners Research Foundation in Minneapolis. ''I think this really causes us to call into question the assumption that it is just a few bad apples."
There is no way, said Martinson, to gauge how much of the nation's research was compromised by the misconduct. And several specialists on scientific conduct said that it was difficult to know from the study how common scientific
misbehavior is because many of the questions were worded vaguely, and could include behavior that is not objectionable. For example, a scientist might have changed the design of an experiment after a legitimate suggestion from a government funding source.
But the specialists welcomed the work, which was published in the journal Nature, saying more research like it is needed at a time when science is becoming increasingly commercialized.
Trust and integrity lie at the heart of the scientific process, with published experimental results making careers, determining whether scientists win research grants, and shaping spending priorities in the nearly $30 billion budget of the National Institutes of Health. At a time when scandals have shaken the worlds of business, politics, and journalism, the authors of the new report said that similar factors -- such as intense competition and human failings such as greed and cynicism -- threaten the fundamental working of science. They said the problem goes well beyond the egregious cases that the government is authorized to investigate.
Editors of prominent medical journals have been increasingly vocal about financial conflicts of interest that they say are hampering science, causing researchers to hype positive results and downplay negative ones. Yet the topic of
misconduct tends to make scientists uneasy, and that has led to a dearth of research on the subject.
''I think this is a very important step," said C. K. Gunsalus, a special counsel at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and one of the nation's leading specialists on research integrity. ''The discomfort means that we don't like to talk about it, and that means we don't have good data."
Surveying misconduct was controversial even before the current study was done. In 2002, the US government's Office of Research Integrity proposed conducting a survey of scientific misconduct, but several scientific groups, including the Association of American Medical Colleges, objected. They said that the survey questions were vague and might be misused, and that the federal government's role should be restricted to policing fabrication, alsification, and plagiarism.
The government study was eventually canceled, and that same year the editors of Nature harshly criticized the scientific groups for their role in stopping it, saying they gave ''a good impersonation of aged, out-of-touch special
interests with something to hide."
The survey reported yesterday was done with government funding, including money from the Office of Research Integrity, but it was conducted by an independent scientific team. An official with the Association of American Medical
Colleges, which represents some of the nation's leading biomedical research institutions, said the group had no objection to the survey being done this way, but she declined to comment on the results of the study, saying she had not had time to review it carefully.
Martinson said his team designed the survey based on interviews with scientists about the kinds of misbehavior they believe are most common. In these interviews, he said, he was surprised at how candid scientists were in describing a wide range of problems. Some said they felt guilty crossing ethical lines, but that they needed to in order to succeed. One scientist, he said, described coming across a case where his own work had been systematically plagiarized, but the scientist did not report it because the person who had done it was a powerful figure in the field.
The team designated 10 of the behaviors as the most serious types of misconduct, based on interviews with officials at universities who oversee research integrity. Thirty-three percent of scientists admitted to at least one of these
10 behaviors in the three years before the survey, according to the paper.
In the report, titled ''Scientists Behaving Badly," the most common misbehavior was MAKING CHANGES IN RESPONSE TO PRESSURE FROM A FUNDER. There have been cases, now public, where drug firms have pressured scientists to rewrite or not
publish papers because they would harm the market for one of their products. [ANY SURPRISE THERE?]
Two of the most common practices found in the survey are likely to raise red flags because they hint at a breakdown of the basic checks and balances that are supposed to correct the scientific record. Of the scientists surveyed, 12.5 percent admitted to ''overlooking others' use of flawed data or questionable interpretation of data," and 6 percent admitted to ''failing to present data that contradict one's own previous research." The paper also reported other
behaviors beyond what it called the ''top 10" most serious offenses. Ten percent admitted to ''inappropriately assigning authorship credit" and 15.3 percent admitted to ''dropping observations or data points from analyses based on a gut feeling that they were inaccurate."
But because of the vagueness of many of the questions, it is impossible to know how serious an infraction the scientists were admitting to, or even if it was an infraction, said Dr. Drummond Rennie, a deputy editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association who has been a longtime advocate for more study of misconduct. Rennie said that he welcomed the work and hoped there would now be more rigorous study of the issue.
Another problem, Rennie and others said, is that the survey relies on scientists to report on themselves, and even with the promise of anonymity, the results depend on the honesty of the people filling it out. Also, only about half
of the scientists responded to the survey, which was mailed.
Martinson said that he agreed there were flaws in the study, but that he hoped it would inspire more discussion of the problem.
''I don't have all the answers," Martinson said. ''What I think I have here is some evidence that suggests we need to begin a more broad-based
conversation."
Gareth Cook can be reached at
cook@globe.com
