≫ The Shortcomings of the Law in Regulating Scientific Misconduct Free Essay Sample on Samploon.com

Table of Contents

Issues Faced by the Scientific Community
- Lack of Accountability to Data
- Lack of Funding for Scientific Research
Public Distrust of Scientific Findings
- Government’s Disregard of Scientific Research
Solutions

“How Red Wine Prevents Cancer” (University of Colorado Denver, 2014). “Red Wine Increases Cancer Risk- But Nine Out of 10 Drinkers are Not Aware of the Dangers” (Pickover, 2017). Two experiments, two data-sets, two contradictory results, both published. One of these studies has to be wrong, but without a clue as to which, the public is left randomly choosing one, or discarding both entirely. This sets a dangerous tone for the progress of the scientific community, yet the laws set in place to combat these issues fall short in many cases.

There currently exists a Federal Research Misconduct policy, which regulates the standards used for scientific research at the federal level, and the ways in which we uphold these standards. The Policy recognizes that “Advances in science, engineering, and all fields of research depend on the reliability of the research record” (ORI), and it attempts to make a standard to which all researchers should be held; however, the issues with this policy are twofold: Firstly, under the current administration federal research is often censored or defunded in order to support specific policy goals, and secondly, federal research is not the only research that benefits the general public, and private research is not held to the same standards. Often times, private scientists who are found to be acting in a way that violates scientific integrity are allowed to continue working on research projects, and while they may be subject to administrative action, that usually only culminates in a lack of funding, and a barring from committees (Hadjiargyrou, 2015). The risk to the scientist of committing misconduct is minimal, and the law falls short of its intended purpose of ensuring the “reliability of the research record.”

The law not only falls short of preventing misconduct, it also falls short of discovering and punishing it. In 2014 the EPA surveyed the Great Bay Estuary, to estimate its current environmental state and determine the regulations that needed to be set in place to protect it. After the regulations came out, many of the local residents felt the regulations were not strong enough to protect the bay, and felt as though the regulations were not based off the factual data, and if they were then the factual data may be incorrect. The residents of the Great Bay Area filed under the Freedom of Information act, asking to see the data the EPA used to set the standards in the area. The government claimed that the data was privileged, and denied the residents’ request. The residents then petitioned the court to force the EPA to allow them to see the data. Multiple motions have been filled on the case, but the dispute is still ongoing.

Make sure your essay is 100% unique

Our experts will write for you an essay on any topic, with any deadline and requirements from scratch

127 our experts are available
right now

Get custom essay

In this instance, the people chose to take a direct interest in science and the way it affects their daily lives, and their request for information was denied. As science plays a huge role in the world we live, scientific misconduct should be treated as any other crime, and should be fully investigated to ensure accuracy, especially when the results of the study directly impact policy decisions. Transparency in experimentation and data collection is not only necessary to ensure accuracy of results, but to increase the public trust and awareness in scientific processes. Reform is necessary because the lack of accountability in the scientific industry denies the general public access to the fruits of scientific progress, and stifles scientific innovation.

Issues Faced by the Scientific Community

Lack of Accountability to Data

One of the largest issues faced by the scientific community is the lack of accountability to data. In recent years, claims of false data have increased, with two percent of scientists admitting that they’ve “fabricated or falsified research data, or altered/modified results” (Fanelli 2009). Outside of the scientists who have directly admitted to faking data, 72 percent of scientists admitted to observing misconduct from their colleagues, and one third of scientists admitted to using “questionable” research practices outside of directly manipulating the data (Fanelli 2009). Falsified data and questionable research practices hurt the general public by not only making the research record less reliable, which makes adequate policy decisions harder, but it also leads to “pseudoscience” and other false claims that can hurt the public through their trust or investment into new products, especially in matters of health.

This lack of accountability can happen at two places in the scientific process: the first on the front end, through doing an experiment with a specific result in mind, testing to obtain that result, and regarding contradictory data as insignificant; and secondly it can happen on the back end, through changing or purposefully misinterpreting data that has already been obtained, in order to produce more desired or more shocking results. As previously addressed, there are lax laws in place to combat misconduct, but it only applies to a lack of accountability on the back end, and only punishes directly falsifying data. There is no legal redress for purposefully misinterpreting or excluding contradictory data, or conducting research with questionable standards, and as one-third of scientists admit to doing this (Fanelli, 2009), it is important to make it clear that this should not and will not be tolerated.

Lack of Funding for Scientific Research

The reasons why a scientist would fake data aren’t always clear, but in a lot of circumstances it comes down to the way funding is managed in the scientific world. Overtime, funding for scientific research has been decreasing, with the most recent plan opting to cut it again by 17% (Johnson, 2018). In deciding how to prioritize which experiments will be federally funded, the preconceived biases of the members of congress often come in to play. William Happer is a physicist with a reputation for denying climate change. He was appointed to the National Security Council, yet many feel Happer is a bad choice for this position. He is known for being a member of the “CO2 Coalition” which argues, contrary to established scientific facts, that CO2 is good for “global plant growth” and has no direct effect on the environment.

Not only does Happer not believe in climate change, but he does his best to prioritize “Climate Contrarians” (Scientists who publish studies against climate change). Scientist are incredibly competitive in vying for funding, and in deciding which scientist gets funding for their experiments, there is a process of judging submitted study proposals to allocate the already scarce resources. Happer, at a Senate Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness hearing, argued that funding should be dedicated specifically to scientists who reject the notion of climate change (Citation). However, as the funding should be used for experiments, scientists should not be conducting experiments with the intent of proving or disproving climate change, but rather should be conducting experiments and letting the data answer the question.

Public Distrust of Scientific Findings

The effects of scientific misconduct extend much further than the actual faulty experiments.

Government’s Disregard of Scientific Research

In much the same way many scientists have been accused of cherry picking the data that supports their side and throwing out the rest, the government often ignores the science conducted legitimately that doesn’t support their policy goals. For example, in early 2017 the National Park service conducted a study to measure the impact of sea level rise on many National Parks around the country; however, the study discussed the effects of “man-made climate change,” something the federal government officially does not recognize.

In a review of the report by the federal government, all references to climate change or man-made impacts were removed. The report was eventually published in May of 2018, yet while the researchers are thrilled to have their work reach the public, the report underscored the need for more research; research they feel will not be funded under the current administration as it is contrary to their policy goals (Aton, 2018). This is not the only example of scientific censorship by the federal government: in 2017, an investigation by the Environmental Data and Governance Data Initiative found that the former head of the EPA, Scott Pruitt, wiped all of the data and information about climate change and renewable resources from the EPA’s website.

According to a notice posted on the website, the purpose of this change was “to reflect EPA’s priorities under the leadership of President Trump and Administrator Pruitt” (Formuzis, 2017). While the EPA has the prerogative to update it’s goals as an administration, it’s primary goal must remain protecting the environment, something that cannot be done with the omission of data, and with sections such as “Climate and Energy Resources for State, Local and Tribal Governments,” which advised these governments on “reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving air quality and people’s health, and saving money,” being deleted, it becomes impossible to protect the environment (Formuzis, 2017). Lawmakers on the state and federal level are forced to legislate blindly, and therefore are unable to be accountable to the data collected by scientists, data which oftentimes would lead to better policy decisions.

Solutions

Strict Misconduct Regulations

One of the clearest methods to decrease the amount of scientific misconduct is to set a stronger legal definition of what classifies as misconduct, and set punishments that go beyond simple administrative action (Hadjiargyrou, 2015). As publishing a piece of scientific research is comparable to free speech, and science occasionally stands contrary to the policies enacted by the government, it is important to ensure that scientific freedom, entrepreneurship, and experimentation aren’t being stifled in the process. The United States is hesitant to enact laws that could potentially limit freedoms, yet the laws in place in other countries can serve as a guide for remedying the laws of the United States.

Brazil, for example, is currently in the process of passing a bill that punishes the spreading of false information “related to health, security, the national economy, the electoral process or all other subjects of public interest,” with up to three years of jail time. Another example could be Kenya, which punishes the purposeful spread of “false, misleading, or fictitious data”; or Malaysia, who punishes the publication of information that is “false or partially false.” Other countries, such as France and Germany, take a less hands on approach to policing the industry, and they hold the social media and news companies accountable for ensuring the accuracy of the information published (Phys, 2018).

The standards put in place by France and Germany could be a strong first step in the United States, as it is consistent with our values of freedom of speech, yet it limits the publicity and profitability of false information, and ends the media’s tendency to sensationalize and misinterpret evidence to have the flashiest headline; however, this may not be enough to combat all instance of scientific misconduct, and as the media is not always able to discern which studies are accurate, misconduct should be weeded out on the scientist’s end as well. One way to do this is through increasing the budget and the punishing power of the Office of Research Integrity, allowing them to go further than the aforementioned administrative action, and establish a clear cut penal code with varying levels of punishment for varying levels of misconduct (Hadjiargyrou, 2015).

Regulate the Allocation of Funds

Ut blandit malesuada quam, ac varius tortor gravida eget. Vestibulum id ligula leo, ut accumsan mi. Sed tristique euismod convallis. Nulla facilisi. Etiam vestibulum est id orci interdum vitae porta enim blandit. Cras sit amet arcu dolor, at venenatis erat. Vestibulum accumsan placerat mauris. Morbi nec nibh nibh. Duis ultricies posuere nunc. Morbi at tellus quis magna vestibulum eleifend.

Increase Public Awareness

Call for Governmental Reform

Opposing Viewpoints

In attempting to legislate a creative venture, such as scientific discovery, there is always the risk of stifling creativity. According to former researcher William Hayes, P.h.D, revolutionary science often breaks the rules, and by legislating rules in place there is the risk of stifling scientific progress. Yet, Dr. Hayes also conceded that once you get to a certain level of science, the distinction between an honest mistake and a blatant forgery becomes clear (W. Hayes, personal communication, October, 2018). Similar to how intent is determined in a court of law, scientists should be able to distinguish between a mistake made in a valid experiment, and a falsehood committed with the intent to mislead.

Secondly, by legislating the way in which scientific funding is allocated, there is the risk of over-correcting for the current errors. While it is wrong for Congress to give preferential funding to scientists who don’t believe in climate change, it would also be wrong to deny funding to these same researchers who are conducting scientifically sound experiments. However, Dr. Hayes addressed a potential solution to that as well: the government should aim to facilitate as many projects as possible on all ends of the spectrum, and the data and results that come back should inevitable favor one side or the other if the experiments are conducted with integrity (W. Hayes, personal communication, October, 2018).

The last consideration in attempting to legislate the progress of science is the way that laws will be enacted. As evidenced throughout history, laws in letter and in interpretation change frequently depending on people controlling congress. According to Dr. Hayes, while laws could be enacted, they may not necessarily be effective in making meaningful change, and more action is necessary. One way to combat this is to fight the notion that science is a partisan issue, that one side believes in climate change and the other doesn’t, rather both parties should commit to legislating based on evidence. This highlights the importance of increasing public trust in and support of science, and pushing for scientific accountability on the scientist’s and the government’s end.

The Shortcomings of the Law in Regulating Scientific Misconduct