Wasted Money on Clinical Trials

Training to be a scientist includes the ability to figure out which science articles might not have enough results to back-up its claim. It also includes the ability to identify if there are any results that could have been affected by bias. Being able to figure out if something might not be reliable is important because it might protect you from being steered in the wrong direction.

This might be a frightening fact but it has been reported that 80% of Chinese clinical trials have been fabricated in some way (Fiona Macdonald). These are clinical trials, not scientific discoveries! This means that these are the studies that may eventually result in a drug approval and be used for a particular condition. I am shocked that the values are so incredibly high on irreproducible/fabricated clinical data in China. The Chinese State Food and Drug Administration (SFDA)  reported that results were written before the clinical trials took place, statistical data was designed to look significant, and/or data was completely left out (to make positive results look consistent). Fabrication is a form of bias because it is in the self interest of the researcher to publish and gain recognition. But why do these individuals not get exposed if the fabrication is so obvious?

Reviewers in China seem to be more passive with “Sketchy” science and it is their responsibility to change the vicious cycle of publishing fraudulent or bad science. Jeremy Berg emphasized the importance of catching clear flaws and making sure enough information is included to allow experimental replication. Reviewers and editors of manuscripts should always have the highest expectations for the journals they wish to publish. The everyday person should be concerned about the amount of fraud, malpractice, fabrication. The government uses tax money to fund research and billions are lost each year to fraudulent research. An article from Jocelyn Kaiser stated that $28 billion a year (in the US) is spent on irreproducible biomedical research. People are more likely to follow rules that are strictly enforced and this includes rules about methods described in journal articles.

Frauds, scams, cheats in science. What will it take to overcome it?

As I’ve gotten into my research project, I’ve begun to notice the lack of accountability that presides within the scientific field. Research projects typically have one or a few people working on them, and the temptation to make data look better is high. As evidenced by the many papers retracted each publishing cycle, there is major fraud going on within research, and I think it stems from a lack of accountability and responsibility felt by those carrying out fraudulent practices. It’s not a crazy thing to say, as well, that none of us are completely immune to it. As Alex Chen enlighted us to the fraud that occurred at Duke University, it is perhaps too easy to manipulate data, or worse, invent subjects and data that never even existed.

In 2015, New York University bioethicist Arthur Caplan said, “The currency of science is fragile, and allowing counterfeiters, fraudsters, bunko artists, scammers, and cheats to continue to operate with abandon in the publishing realm is unacceptable.” Fraud in science is on the rise, and not only is it a threat to those individuals’ careers, but it is a threat to all research. Science is designed to enlighten, provide methods to answer sought out questions, and in the end to save lives, and when fraud enters into the science, none of that can occur.  Probably one of the main arguments for those that have falsified data is the pressure to obtain funding and publish in a funding environment that has become very strict over the past few years. What they don’t see is how big of a threat fraudulent data is to public funding. The public doesn’t like being lied to, especially when it has to do with potential medical breakthroughs and their own health, and as fraud continues to come in front of the public eye, funding will most likely decrease. Trust from the public is necessary for funding, and maintaining honesty and integrity in research is necessary for that trust.  

An added complexity to this already complex mess of fraudulent research is the idea that it might not be the wanted success and fame that pushes them to be fraudulent, but it could be the necessity to put food on the table for their family.  Not only are scientists striving to provide meaningful research to further medicine (hopefully), but they are also striving to feed their families. Would having a system in which accountability and responsibility were incumbent on the researchers (by some type of education or university program) decrease the temptation to falsify results? Would having a system in which the publish or perish mentality was somehow alleviated, and there was security of an income, decrease the temptation to falsify results? Would journals that began publishing negative, nonsignificant results with repeated experiments from other papers help decrease the temptation to falsify results? And can such a system exist, let alone be put in place?

I believe it is necessary for the sustainability of scientific research to report data correctly. This might only happen if there is some sense of accountability and responsibility. Scientists are humans. We need to eat. But we are expected, like most other humans are expected, to be upright, have integrity, and not lie. Is there a way we can do good science, remain upright, and eat?