Scientific Research and Ethics

r I

'-

I r I

t ~

1

L

Scientific Resea rch and Ethics There is a growing recognition among scientists, government officials, research institutions, and the public that ethical conduct is essential to scientific research. Ethical conduct is important to foster collaboration, cooperation, and trust among scient ists, to advance the goals of research, to and fulfill scientists' social responsibilities, and to avoid or minimi ze damaging scandals resulting from unethical or ill egal behavior. This chapter discusses the importance of ethi cs in re search and the nature of scientific professionalism.

r

Ethical problems, issues, and dilemmas occur for most people on a daily basis. ~Thenever we ask the question, "What should I do?" there is a good chance that an ethical issue or concern lurks in the background. In everyday life, such questions frequently arise as we make choices among different interests and commitments, such as career, fam ily, community, church , society, prestige, and money. Professional researchers-scientists, engineers, and scholars-also frequently face ethical problems, issues, and dilemmas. Consider the following cases. Case 1

You are graduate student in pharmacology at a large un iversity working under the direction of a senior researcher. You notice, on reading a paper on the pharmacology of a new serotonin reuptake inhibitor, which your senior director published in a top journal in your field , that there are problems with the diagrams in the paper. You cannot seem to reconcile the diagrams with the published data . You approach her wi th th is problem, and she shrugs it off, saying that you do not understand the research well enough to make a judgment about it. ~That should you do' Case 2

You are a graduate student in sociology worki ng on a dissertation on attitudes toward the environment, comparing rural, suburban, and u rban populations. You have collected data from focus groups, phone interviews, and surveys distributed by mail and e-mail. You have compiled the surveys, and now you have begun to edit and clean up your data. It appears that 20% of the subjects who took the survey misunderstood a couple of the questions, because their answers to these questions are inconsistent with other questions and their written comments. You also discover that for some of the other questions, 15% of the subjects gave no answer, and that for other questions, 12 % of the answers were difficult to read. All of t hese issues may affect the statistical significance of your work and the analysis and interpretation of the data. H ow should you deal with these problems with your data? 3

i

4

Respon sible Conduct of Research

Scientific Research and Ethics

5

Case 3

objective (Bronowski 1956, Snow 1964) and ethics are subjective, so scientists

You are a postdoctoral fellow in epidem iology at a university collaborating with a senior researcher. You have just read an important paper in your fi eld

need not deal with ethical issues and concerns when conduct ing research. Ethical and social questions, according to this view, occur in the applications of science, but not in the conduct of science. Humanists, politicians, and the

and contact the author about it. The paper is one of several the author has published from a la rge, publicly funded database. You ask the author if you can have access to the database to confirm your own work. The author says

he will share data with you only if you agree to a formal collaboration with him and name him as a coauthor in publications that use the database. What should you do?

public can grapple with the ethical (or moral) aspects of research; the main task of the scientist is to do research for its own sake (Rescher 1965). (Note that, although some scholars distinguish between "ethics" and "morality," in

this book we use t hese terms interchangeably.)

Case 4

While it is important for scientists to strive for objectivity, this does not mean th at ethical questions, problems, and concerns have no place in research conduct. The idea that ethics is an important part of research is by no means

You are the director of the D epa rtment of Veterinary Medicine at a veterinary school associated with a university. You are also the chair of your institution's an imal care and use committee, which oversees animal research.

new. Cha rles Babbage (1830 [1970]) wrote about the lack of ethics, honesty, and integrity in British science. During the Nuremberg trials after World War II, researchers became painfully aware of the need for ethica l reflection

The group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has staged

on resea rch when th e world learned abou t the horrors of Na zi research on

some protests recently in your com munity. A local reporter ca Ils you on the phone and wants to do an interview with you about an imal research and ani -

human beings. Such physicists as Albert Einstein and Robert Oppenheimer

mal rights. How should you handle this situation? Case 5 You are professor of pediatrics and an expert on child abuse. You have been asked to serve as an ex pert witn ess for the defense in a case. The prosecutors

have hired two experts who are prepared to testify that child ab use probably occurred. You know th ese experts from professional meetings and from their

published work, and you have a great deal of respect for them. After examining the X-rays, photographs, and other data, you are not convinced that child abuse has occurred, and you could offer testimony that supports the defense in t his case. As a long-standing advocate of child welfare and rights, you would have a hard time testifying for the defense and contradicting the testimony offered by your colleagues. You want to protect your reputation, in any case. T he defense will find another expert if you refuse t heir request. What should you do? These cases typify some of the complex ethical, social, and lega l dilemmas

came to terms with their moral responsibilities in the wa r effort, both as supporters of research on atomic weapons during the war and as advocates for

the peaceful use of atomic energy after the war (Zuckerman 1966). In the 1960s, ecologist Rachel Carson published Silent Sp"ing (1961), which alerted the public to the dangers of pesticides and helped to launch the environmentalist movenient. Clin ical researcher H enr y Beecher (1966) published an influential essay in the New England ]aumo/ afM edicine that exposed unethical or questionable resea rch involving human subjects, including the now infamous Willowbrook experiments, where children were exposed to

hepatitis virus. In 1972, the publiclearned about the Tuskegee syphilis study, and congressional investigations exposed many ethical problems, including

violations of informed consent and failure to provide subjects with adequate medical care (Jones 1981). (Chapter 12 di scusses this case in depth.) Today, scientists need to pay special attention to research ethi cs in thei r own work and in teaching students about how to conduct resea rch for many

reasons (Sigma Xi 1986, Shamoo 1989, Shamoo and Dunigan 2000). First, modern research is not a soli ta ry activity. Scientists co llaborate with students and colleagues in their own institutions as well as with other scientists

that can arise in the conduct of research. To make well-informed, reasonable, and responsible choices in cases such as these, as well as to g uide conduct in similar cases, researchers need some understanding of the moral and social

in other institutions (Merton 1973, Ziman 1984). Although Isaac Newton was able to develop his laws of motion with little help from other physicists,

dimensions of research. The purpose of this book is to provide researchers with some of the education that is required for the responsible conduct of

more than 100 researchers from across the world to collaborate on a single experiment in high-energy physics. Collaboration is also important in the

research. In recen t years, universities, research organizations, professional societies, fundin g agencies, politicians, the media, and most scientists have come to realize that ensuring ethical conduct is an essential part of basic, applied, and

eva luation of research proposals and projects that occurs in peer review. Peer review functions as a gate-keeping mechanism to ensure that research

clinical research. Little more than a few decades ago, many scientists would not have accepted this statement. According to a view that has held sway

adhere to standards of conduct that foster effective collaboration and promote the goals of science (Hull 1988). Thus, ethical concepts and principles,

among scientists, humanists, and the general public for centuries, science is

such as honesty, integrity, trust, accountability, respect, confidentiality, and

today's physicists work together in research teams. It is not uncommon for

proposals or publications meet methodological and professional standards. Because scientists must collaborate in conducting research , they need to

6

Responsible Conduct of Research

fairness, playa key role in shaping research conduct within science (ShamaD

and Annau 1987, American Association for the Advancement of ScienceAmerican Bar Association 1988, LaFollette 1992, National Academy of Sciences 1992, 1994, Resnik 1998c, Macrina 2005, Steneck 2006). Second, research always takes place within a social context. Economic and political interests as well as social, cu ltural, and religious values influence sci-


7

laws or policies may be enacted. Research results also play an important role in public education. School-age children, as well as adults, learn about SCIence every day, and science can have a profound Impact on how they view: the world. Because science can influence how we relate to each other, to society, and to nature, it is important for research results to be reliable and relevant.

A third reason why scientists should pay special attention to ethics is that

entific goals, resources, and practices (Ziman 1984, Boyd 1988,Jasanoff 1990, 1995, Longino 1990, Resnik 1998c, 2007b, Guston 2000, Washburn 2006,

illicit or unwise research activities can generate negative publicity, legallia-

Shulman 2007). Most universities and research organi zations would not exist without a~ a.mple supply of public and private funds. Money plays a crucial

sions scientists need to be concerned about ethics in the laboratory and 111 their'interactions with society. Since the 1980s, science has experienced its

role 111 decldlOg whether a particular problem will be studied, who will study It, how It wIll be studIed, and even whether the results will be published. For example, many illnesses are not sufficiently studied because of a lack of fund-

share of scandals, which have had an adverse impact on the public's support for research and its trust in science. The following are but a few examples:

ing. In the private secrar, the prospect of profit is the main reason for investing mon,ey in resea~ch ?11 treatJ.nents for diseases. Pharmaceutical companies

• Allegations of data fabrication and falsification agai nst Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) researcher Thereza Imamshl-Kan in an immunology paper coauthored by Nobel Laureate David Baltimore (Kevles 1998) and against University of Pittsburgh medical researcher Bernard Fisher related to the National Surgical Breast and Bowel Project (Buyse and Evans 2001) • Confirmed cases of data fabrication or falsification involving Harvard postdoctoral fellow John Darsee (LaFollette 1992), University of Pittsburgh psychologist Stephen Breuning (Broad and Wade 1982 [1993]), Bell Labs physicistJan Hendrik Schon (Resnik 2003b), South Korean embryonic stem cell researcher Woo Suk Hwang (Normile et al. 2006), and University of Vermont medical researcher Eric Poehlman (Kinitisch 2005) • Suppression of data by private companies, such as Merck's failure to pub-

tend to Ulvest heavIly 111 studYlOg eliseases that afflict many people, such as heart dIsease or hypertension, while virtually ignoring illnesses that affect fewer people, such as personality disorders and malnutrition. Political interests and ~ocia l values can also influence the research process. For example, research In HIV/AIDS languished during the 1980s but took off during the

1990s, due 111 large part to intense lobbying efforts by AIDS activists. Federal funding for AIDS research is now more than $1 billion annually, outpacing even cancer research. In contrast, in the 1980s, anti-abortion activists pushed

for a ban on the use of federally funded research involving human embryos. In August 2001 , PreSIdent George W. Bush announced a policy that significantly restricted the use of federal government money for research on human embryonic stem cells. In July 2006, Congress passed legislation to expand the use of federal funds for human embryonic stem cell research, but PreSIdent Bush vetoed the bill (Mooney 2005, Shulman 2007). Because science takes place within society, with the help of considerable publIc support and funding, scientists have social responsibilities (National Academy of Sciences 1994, Shrader-Frechette 1994, Resnik 1998a,c). Scientists have an obligation to benefit society and avoid causing harm to people, commuDltles, and the environment. Scientists must also be account-

able to the public. Scientists can fulfill their social responsibilities in many dIfferent ways, such as conducting useful research, educating the public about sc~ enc.e a~d its social implications, providing expert testimony and advice on sClentlfic Issues, or engaging in policy debates concerning issues related to

the applications or implications of science and technology, such as global clImate change, air and water pollution, food and drug safety, public health, dIsaster preparedness, and national security. Since people use the results of research to form social policy and to address practical problems in medicine

engineering, agriculture, industry, and public hea lth , scientists must striv~ to earn the public's support and trust. If research results afe erroneous or

unreliable, then people may be killed or harmed, the environment may be degraded, money and resources may be misused or wasted, and misguided

bility, and poisonous political fallout. To avoid these damaging repercus-

lish data, in a timely fashion, related to cardiov.lscular risks associated

with its drug Vioxx (rofecoxib), and several companies' failure to publish data showing that children who take some types of selective serotonin uptake inhibitors have an increased risk of suicide (Resnik 2007b) • Private companies' intimidation and harassment of scientists who

sought to publish data thatwould adversely affect their products, such as Boots Pharmaceuticals' attempt to stop UmverSlty of Ca lIforma pharmacologist Betty Dong from publishing a study of its hypothyroidism drug Synthroid, and Apotex's retaliation against Nancy O livieri, who was attempting to tell scientists and patients about flsks

associated with its thalassemia drug deferiprone (Resnik 2007b) • Tragic, avoidable deaths of research subjects in clinical trials, including Hoiyan Wan, Jesse Gelsinger, Ellen Roche, and Jolee Mohr (Steinbrook 2002, Edwards et al. 2004, Weiss 2007) • Poorly managed risks to human research subjects in a variety of

studies, such as the phase I trial ofTGN1412, in which six research subjects developed a severe immune response to a monoclonal antl-

body and almost died (Wood and Darbyshire 2006, Shamoo and Woeckner 2007)


8

• Financial conflicts of interest in academic research at the National

Institutes of H ealth (NIH) and on Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory panels (Resnik 2007b) • Politica lly inflammatory research on the relationship between race and intelligence, including Herrnstein and Murray's controversial book The Bell e m've (1994)

• Publication of research that could be used by terrorists to make biological weapons or threaten public health and safety (National Research Council 2003, Resnik and Shamoo 2005, Wein and Lu 2005) • Underreporting of adverse events in many clinical trials that have

a direct impact on the integrity of data (Shamoo and Katzel 2007, 2008) And the list goes on (Broad and Wade 1982 [1993J, American Association for the Adva ncement of Science 1991 , LaFollette 1992, 1994b,c, Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments 1995, Resnik 1998a,c, Steneck 1999, Pascal 2000, Shamoo and Dunigan 2000). Fourth, science's evolving rel ationship with private industry has raised many ethical issues in research, because the academic va lues of objectivity

and openness frequently clash with the busi ness interests in profit and competitiveness. Science-industry collaborations can create issues concerning conflicts of interest, biases, secrecy, insider trading, and social responsibility

as well as intellectual property disputes (Bowie 1994, Spier 1995, Rule and Shamoo 1997, Resnik 1998c, 2007). These issues have become increasingly

Scientific Research and Ethic s

9

(Shrader-Frechette 1994, Resnik 1998c). Each profession has its own ethical

standards, wh ich govern the practices in t~~ ,profeSSion. In me,dlcl~e, phYSl~ dans abide by rules such as "do no harm, ~ro~ot.e the patIent 5 h~~lth,,, "maintain confidentiality'" and "honor the pattent 5 nght to make decIsIons

(Beauchamp and Childress 2001). Science also has its own standards,"such as "honestly report data and results," "give proper credIt contributIons, .and "share data, meth ods, ideas, materials, and results." (Chapter 2 eXa[~llneS

these standards in more detaiL) Professions usually adopt codes of ethics to signal to members ofthe profession and the public atlarge the type of behavior that is expected in the professlOn (Bayles 1988). Ever smce the time of Hippocrates (ca. 460-377 B.C.), physicians have sworn allegiance to a code of conduct. Although modern codes of conduct in health care differ from the Hippocratic Oath, they still playa key role in goverlllng professlOnal conduct. Since the 1980s, many different sCientific discIpi Illes and societies have adopted ethics codes, including the American Chemical Society (1994), the American Physical Society (2002), the American Society for BlOchellllstr y and Molecular Biology (1998), the American Psychological ASSOCiation (1992), the American Statistical Association (1999), among many others. Professional ethical standards function (a) to promote the goals of the profession and (b) to prove to the public that members of the profeSSIOn are trustworthy (Bayles 1988). For example, one of medicine's ~oa ls IS to treat disease. A rule like "maintain the patient'S confidentIalIty IS nece~ sury to promote the goals of medicine, because patients may not tell phYSI-

cians important information concern1I1g theIr sy~ptoms o.r m~dlcal hIstory,

if they cannot trnst that physicians will keep thIS Illformatlon III confidence.

important as private investments in research and development (R& D) have

Without this information, medIcal dIagnOSIs and tr~atment can~~t be ve~y

skyrocketed in recent years: In the United States, total private funding of R&D rose from $50 billion annually in 1980 to $100 bill ion annually in 1995. As we begin the twenty-first century, private funding of R&D is more tha n $200 billion per year and now accounts for more than 60% of all R&D funding (Shamoo 1989, Jaffe 1996, National Science Foundation 1997, Malakoff 2000a, Resnik 2007). For these reasons and many others, universities, funding agencies, research institutions, professional societies, and scientists are now very much aware of

effective. Confidentiality is also important for earnmg the public s trnst III medicine. In science, some of the goals are (a) to develop systematic knowledge about the natural world, (b) to understand and explain n atu ral phenomena, and (c) to predict and control natural phenomena. Ethical rules lIke "honestly report data and results" are necessary for developmg knowledge, because knowledge cannot be built on false beliefs and deceptions. Honesty also helps to secure the public's trust in s~i~nce. . . Science shares several social charactenstlcs WIth other recoglllzed pro~es

the importance of ethics in research. There have been a va riety of responses to these ethica l concerns, including workshops and conferences; books, journals articles, and edited volumes; debates about the definitlon of "research misconduct"; investigations of misconduct in research; revisions of journal policies; drafts and revisions of professional codes of ethics in research; and education in research ethics, including formal courses and seminars.

sions, such as medicine, law, engineering, and accounting. First, a profeSSIon is more than an occupation; it is a career or vocatio~ ~Davis 1 99~b~. The first people to be recognized as professionals were phYSICIans and. m~11lsters, '~ho viewed themselves as being "called" to serve and devoted th eIr hves to domg good works for society. Science is also a career. or vocation. Seco~d , because

SCIENCE AS A PROFESSION

In discussions of ethics in research among scientists, science scholars, ethicists, and policy analysts, there has been a broad and emerging consensus that research ethics call be understood according to the professional model

professionals provide valuable goods and serVices, they have socJaI responsibilities and can be held publicly accountable (DaVIS 1995b). PhYSICIans, for example, have professional duties to promote not only the health of their patients but also the public's health. As noted above, sCientists also have social responsibilities and can be held publicly accountable. For example, SCIentists have an obligation to educate the public and to proVide mfonnatlon and advice for policy debates.

10

Respon sible Conduct of Research

Third, although professionals have social responsibilities, they are also granted a great deal of autonomy: Society allows professionals to be selfregulating (Bayles 1988). Professionals can make their Own standards and rules, provided that they obey the law and fulfill their public responsibilities. PhysIcIans, for example, set their Own standard of care and determine

what it takes to become a qualified member of the profession. Scientists are also self-regulating: Scientists make their own rules for designing expenments, drawIng mferences from data, publishing results, and so on. Sci~ntists determine what counts as "good scientific practice." Fourth, professIOns, h.a~e codes of ethics to achieve self-regulat.ion and promote social


11

Science is now also a sizable part of the world's economy: Total (private and public) R&D investments account for about 2.5% of the gross domestic product (GOP) in developed countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany (May 1998). Economic activity directly related to scientific research is estimated to be about 6% of the U.S. GDP (Resnik 2007). The indirect iUlpacts of research are much larger than the direct impacts, since investments in R&D have led to economically significant innovations, such as computers, the Internet, airplanes, automobiles, nuclear energy, and radar. As the twenty-first century economy becomes more dependent on information, investments in R&D are likely to continue an upward trend

responsIbIlity. As noted above, many scientific societies and professions

that began in World War II (Dickson 1988). Literally millions of scientists

have developed ethics codes. Finally, professionals are recognized as having exp~rtlse. Pl~yslclans, for ex~mpl~, have expertise when it comes to diagnosmg, treatmg, and prevennng dISeases (Bayles 1988). Scientists also have

are employed in universities, research institutions, private laboratories, or other organizations that conduct research (National Science Foundation

expertise: They are recognized as experts within their domain of knowl edge and in perfonning experiments, analyzing data, and o ther scientific activities.

Priorto the Scientific Revolution (ca. 1500-1700 A.D.), science was more of

1997). It is estimated that there are more scientists alive today than all of the scientists who have lived during the past 2,500 years of human history (Dickson 1988). For better or worse, the modern age is a scientific one. These increases in science's power carry added social responsibilities, and science should now

an avocation than a vocation. Scientists often worked in isolation and financed

be regarded as a profession, of which science has all the characteristics: It is a

their own research. They did not publish very frequently- the printing press was not invented until the mid l400s-and when they did, their works were

career, entails public responsibilities, is self-regulating, has ethical standards,

not peer reviewed. There were no professional scientific societies or journals

until the mid l600s. Universities taught only a small number of scientific subjects, and many scientists could master several different subjects. For example, ~ewton made contributions in mechanics, astronomy, optics, and

mathematIcs (Newton 1687 [1995]). Private businesses and governments saw Iitt~e reason to .invest in research. Science also did not have a great deal of socIal status or llnpact-the church and the state battled for social influence and political power (Zi man 1984, Burke 1995). But all of that changed after the Scientific Revolution. At the beginning of the .twent,Y-first century, th.ere are thousands of scientific societies and pro-

fessIonal Journals. Peer reVieW plays a key role in funding and publications deCISIOns. As noted above, scientists now work in research groups, which may

include laboratory assistants and data analysts as well as postdoctoral, graduate, and undergraduate students. Universities now offer srudy in hundreds of different scientific subjects, and it is virtually impossible to achieve scientific ~xpertis~ ~ithout specialization. Governments and private corporations now mvest bIllIons of doUars each year in science. Science has become one the

and is endowed with expertise and intellectual authority. Ethical standards can play an important role in research by promoting the goals of science, such as pursuing objective knowledge and solving practical problems; by promoting cooperation and collaboration among scientists; and by helping to boost the public's trust in science. To understand professional conduct in

science, we therefore need to have a better understanding of ethical theory and decision making. Case Study: Fraud in South Korean Stem Cell Research

In 1998, James Thomson and colleagues perfected methods for growing human embryonic stem (HES) cells in culture (Thomson et al. 1998). Scientists from around the world soon became excited about the possibilities of some day using HES cells to treat diseases involving dead or poorly functioning tissue, such as paralysis due to nerve damage, type I diabetes, heart disease, Alzheimer's dementia, and many other conditions. However, there

were several technical barriers to developing HES cell therapies, including coaxing the HES cells to differentiate into the appropriate cell types, getting the differentiated cells to function properly in the body, and overcoming

most influential social institutions in society (Ziman 1984). Most of the tech-

the human immune system's reaction to transplanted cells or tissues made

nologies and many of the ideas in our modern world are the direct or indi-

from those cells. Some scientists proposed that one way of dealing with this third problem would be to develop HES cells from the patient's own tissues (i.e., somatic cells), employing the nuclear transfer techniques used to create Dolly, the world's first cloned sheep. In this procedure, a nucleus from

rect result of scienti fic research. Scientists now publish millions of articles a yea~, and the informat~on boom continues to increase. Scientists give expert testJ~ony t? congress~onal committees and government agencies, and they

pro."lde adVIce to presIdents, governors, genera ls, and corporate executives. Children learn about science in school, and most professional ca reers require

some type of scientific and technical knowledge.

a somatic cell is transferred into a zygote that has had its nucleus removed.

The cells created by the procedure should not be rejected by the patient's immune system, because genetically they would be almost identical to the

12


patient's own cells. The procedure, also known as "therapeutic cloning," is ethically controversial (and illegal in some countries) because it involves

creating embryos for the sake of resea rch or therapy and destroying them (National Bioethics Advisory Commission 1999, Salter and Gearhart 1999, President's Counci l on Bioethics 2002). In 2004 and 2005, Woo Suk Hwang, a professor at Seou l University in South Korea, published two papers in the journal Science reporting the derivation of HES cell lines by therapeutic cloning (Hwang et al. 2004, 2005). The papers claimed that the HES cell lines produced by this process were genetically identical to the donor somatic cells. Hwang had assistance from numerous colleagues ar Seoul University and other collaborators. The two papers, especially the second one, had a tremendous impact on the stem cell research field, and Hwang attainted international recognition for his work and became a national hero. Hwang, a veterinarian by training, had pub-

I I

lished previous papers on cloning dogs and cows. In November 2005, one of Hwang's collaborators on the 2005 paper, University of Pittsburgh scientist Gerald Schatten, accused Hwang of misleading him about the source of the eggs used in the experiments. Hwang admitted that some of the eggs had been provided by women working in his laboratory, a practice that was legal in South Korea but regarded by many as unethical because using research subjects who are subordinates can be coercive. Hwang later admitted that egg donors were paid as mucb as $1,400 (Resnik et al. 2006). In December 2005, the editors of Science received an anonymous tip that two of the photos ofHES cells published in the 2005 paper were duplications. Later, one of Hwang's coauthors, Sung Roh, told the media that Hwang had fabricated 9 of the 11 cell lines presented in the paper. Hwang asked for the article to be withdrawn from Science, and a committee from Seoul U niversity began investigating the 2005 paper and Hwang's other publications. The committee determined that none ofHES cell lines were genetically identical to somatic donor cells. The committee also found that Hwang had used 273 eggs, not 185 as reported, and that the cell lines in the 2004 paper were also fabricated. And the committee found that Hwang had been involved in the egg procurement process- Hwang had helped donors fill out forms and had escorted them to clinics for egg removal- and that authorship on the 2004 and 2005 papers had been granted for minor contributions to the research. Hwang resigned his position at Seoul University at the end of December 2005. In May 2006, Hwang and five collaborators were indicted on charges of fraud, embezzlement ($3 million), and breach ofbioethics laws (Whon and Normile 2006). A committee at the University of Pittsburgh examined Schatten's collaboration with Hwang. The committee found that Schatten played no role in the data fabrication but that he had shirked his authorship responsibilities by failing to carefully review the data and the manuscript. The committee also found that Schatten had accepted unusually large consulting fees ($40,000) for his role in assisting Hwang's research group (Resnik et al. 2006).


13

Following the Hwang affair, the editors at Science decided to revie~ their peer-review policies to try to prevent similar scandals from

occurr~ng In the

future. Although peer review is not designed to catch fraud , the edItors were embarrassed that an obvious problem (two duplIcate Images) had slIpped through their peer-review process. The editors decided to startglvlllg hlghimpact papers extra scrutiny and to pay greate: ~ttentlo~ to dIgItal. Images (Kennedy 2006). Other journals have also reVISIted thelt peer-reVIew and misconduct policies in response to the Hwang affair. T~e ~ommlttee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has also developed some gUldelmes and rules to help journals deal with misconduct (Committee on PublIcation EthICS 2007).