Journals tackle scientific fraud
{{date|February  7, 2006}}
[[Image:ScientificReview.jpg|right|200px]]
After a rapid succession of cases of major [[w:scientific misconduct|scientific fraud]], scientific journals are questioning the effectiveness of the current [[w:peer review|peer review]] system and asking what their role should be in policing fraud.

Less than a month after the confirmation that [[South Korea|South Korean]] scientist [[w:Hwang Woo-Suk|Hwang Woo-Suk]]'s cloning results were falsified, another case was discovered.  A [[Norway|Norweigian]] researcher had made up patient histories of about 900 people for a study on cancer.  Richard Horton, the editor of ''[[w:The Lancet|The Lancet]]'', in which the research appeared, has responded to the scandal, "Peer review is a great system for detecting badly done research, but if you have an investigator determined to fabricate an entire study, it is not possible to pick it up." 

While carefully examining the data for every publication would be prohibitively expensive, several techniques to screen for falsified data have been developed.  For example, images can be checked for after-the-fact manipulation.  The scandals have led to some readers looking more carefully at suspicious papers for evidence that the data are human-manufactured.  [[w:Jan Hendrik Schön|Jan Hendrik Schön]]'s fraud was partly revealed due to just such analysis by readers in 2002.

Some institutions are taking further steps to prevent fraud.  In October, [[w:Emory University|Emory University]] introduced a tip line where people can anonymously report suspicions of scientific misconduct.  So far, five investigations have been launched based on reports to the tip line.

While many are working to deter future scandals, some scientists have pointed out that such fraud does not discredit all science.  Dieter Imboden, the president of the [[Switzerland|Swiss]] National Science Foundation's Research Council, has said: "Bear in mind that every experiment will be repeated at some stage and it is one of the important principles of science that only things which can be verified independently by different groups are considered to be safe scientific facts." 

==Related news==
*{{Wikinews|title=Lancet cancer study a hoax
|date= January 20, 2006 }}
*{{Wikinews|title= Norwegian scientist published fake findings in Lancet
|date= January 17, 2006 }}
*{{Wikinews|title= South Korean scientists clone dog for first time
|date=August 4, 2005}}

==Sources==
*{{source|url=http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060130/full/439520a.html
|title=Should journals police scientific fraud?
|author=Emma Marris
|pub=Nature (journal)
|date=February 3, 2006}} 
*{{source|url=http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060116/full/439248b.html
|title=Doctor admits Lancet study is fiction
|author=Emma Marris
|pub=Nature (journal)
|date=January 17, 2006}}
*{{source|url=http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/local/13799276.htm
|title=Emory's fraud tip line aims to keep science honest
|author=[[Associated Press|AP]]
|pub=Ledger Enquirer
|date=February 5, 2006}}
*{{source|url=http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=107&sid=6400215&cKey=1138013154000
|title="It's difficult to prevent scientific fraud"
|author=
|pub=swissinfo
|date=January 23, 2006}}

==External links==
*[http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060116/full/439248b.html Nature Magazine]
*[http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=107&sid=6400215&cKey=1138013154000 Swissinfo.org]

{{Publish}}
{{archived}}

[[Category:Science and technology]]
[[Category:Genetics]]
[[Category:North America]]
[[Category:Europe]]
[[Category:United States]]
[[Category:Switzerland]]
[[Category:Cancer]]
200px
After a rapid succession of cases of major scientific fraud, scientific journals are questioning the effectiveness of the current peer review system and asking what their role should be in policing fraud.

Less than a month after the confirmation that South Korean scientist Hwang Woo-Suk's cloning results were falsified, another case was discovered.  A Norweigian researcher had made up patient histories of about 900 people for a study on cancer.  Richard Horton, the editor of The Lancet, in which the research appeared, has responded to the scandal, "Peer review is a great system for detecting badly done research, but if you have an investigator determined to fabricate an entire study, it is not possible to pick it up." 

While carefully examining the data for every publication would be prohibitively expensive, several techniques to screen for falsified data have been developed.  For example, images can be checked for after-the-fact manipulation.  The scandals have led to some readers looking more carefully at suspicious papers for evidence that the data are human-manufactured.  Jan Hendrik Schön's fraud was partly revealed due to just such analysis by readers in 2002.

Some institutions are taking further steps to prevent fraud.  In October, Emory University introduced a tip line where people can anonymously report suspicions of scientific misconduct.  So far, five investigations have been launched based on reports to the tip line.

While many are working to deter future scandals, some scientists have pointed out that such fraud does not discredit all science.  Dieter Imboden, the president of the Swiss National Science Foundation's Research Council, has said: "Bear in mind that every experiment will be repeated at some stage and it is one of the important principles of science that only things which can be verified independently by different groups are considered to be safe scientific facts."
Science and technology Genetics North America Europe United States Switzerland Cancer