In 2005 Elizabeth Goodwin, PhD, a geneticist and professor at University of Wisconsin-Madison, admitted to manipulating data on a research grant application in order to convince reviewers that her lab was worthy of the money it was requesting. She was turned in by graduate students working at her lab.
Just this last week, Dr. Thomas Zdeblick, a surgeon at UW-Madison, was found to have received $34 million from a company called Medtronic because he allowed employees at that company to ghost-write papers with his name on them, which advocated the use of a controversial and ineffective spinal treatment the company was promoting. These papers failed to disclose that the spinal treatment being advocated for had been shown to cause sterility in men.
These two cases exemplify a problem in modern scientific research funding: The incentive to cheat is incredibly high. While about one in 10 grants submitted to the National Institutes of Health are accepted, millions of dollars in funding are on the line. This atmosphere of extreme competition, combined with the fact that review boards have no way to verify the legitimacy of data in grant applications, leads to dishonesty. Because the scientific method is supposed to lead to objective, verifiable results, the attitudes and ethics of these individuals taint the field in general.
While the solution I am going to propose may seem radical and even hypocritical (both of my research jobs at this university were dependent on tax-payer funding), I do believe it is the only way to stop these problems.
Before I get into that though, I would also like to point out that the attitude of many researchers that I have encountered must change. Oftentimes I hear the words “I almost have the data I need.” That phrase is inherently not objective. Research cannot be about finding results that fit the hypothesis; it must be about finding results that are verifiable and true. The problem with many journals is that papers are rarely accepted that have results rejecting the researcher’s hypothesis or have inconclusive results. Many times in research, perhaps even the majority of the time, results will be inconclusive. A huge part of the culture in my view is taking data and manipulating it to fit conclusions that are simply dishonest.
I think that so often in academia, researchers become self-obsessed; only their ideas and their beliefs are true, even if the data isn’t there. This leads to an unbelievable coldness and an unbelievable arrogance, as I’m sure many of you have experienced in at least one class.
Narcissism is perhaps the most obnoxious characterization of modern science; because science can be used as a force for good, it is disheartening that the culture can be so impersonal. When individuals like climatologist Michael E. Mann (inventor of the hockey stick model of global warming) become so prideful that they lie about having won a Nobel Prize, you know there is a problem.
The solution to these problems in my mind is to get the government out of research funding. Let academic institutions fund their own research from the tuition of the students. Let private companies like Red Bull and Virgin Galactic fund research that is important and beneficial. Let pharmaceutical companies develop new drugs using their profits for funding. Let individuals regulate these institutions by bringing lawsuits against any dishonest representations, such as the Medtronic example. In this way, regulation and oversight is closer to the funding source.
Some obscure committee at the NIH won’t be reviewing grant applications, the employers of the researchers will. In this way I believe we can better facilitate the monetary needs of our researchers, and we can better assure that the scientists are kept honest.
Steven is a junior majoring in biochemistry and political science. Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
