Misconduct in Science: SOCIAL SCIENCE CASES

Issues of scientific misconduct in the forms of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP) tend to be most prominently reported in the biomedical area, where fraudulent data may lead to serious consequences for patients receiving treatment. Nevertheless, scientific misconduct in the social sciences may also cause considerable damage—not the least being the undermining of public trust in a scientific endeavor that aims to be of benefit to social decision-making. Among the cases that have been most prominent in this area are those associated with anthropologists and psychologists.

Anthropology Cases

The American anthropologist Margaret Mead (1901–1978) in her famous 1928 study, Coming of Age in Samoa, described adolescence in those islands in glowing terms with little cultural competition and easy and frequent sexual activities among teenagers that was not condemned by Samoan society. The only problem with this book, which received high acclaim, was that it was based on a myth, as later documented in detail by Derek Freeman (1983). Reasons for such a vast and almost complete misinterpretation of the facts of the culture, according to Freeman, include the following: Mead could not speak the Samoan language; she lived with an American family while on the islands; she was denied access to the chiefs who determined the laws and customs; she simply overlooked contradictory data to her favorite theories. Freeman's criticisms of Mead have, however, been challenged; for a review of the controversy, see James E. Côte (2000).

Other cases have involved charges that anthropologists have on occasion aided and abetted the mistreatment of indigenous peoples or illegitimately conspired with national governments. Patrick Tierney (2000), for example, charged that during the 1960s the anthropologist Napoleon A. Chagnon was complicit in the fomenting of violence among the Yanomami, a tribal people living in remote areas of Brazil and Venezuela. (He also charged Chagnon's associate, the geneticist James V. Neel, with administering measles vaccine to the Yanomami according to protocols that were not in their best interest.) An American Anthropological Association (AAA) investigation did not sustain the most grievous charges, and in fact argued that Tierney himself, through misrepresentation and sensationalism, failed to practice responsible journalism. Nevertheless, it did admit that the Yanomami are now in such danger as to encourage "anthropologists to reflect deeply upon the ways in which they conduct research" (AAA 2002).

The AAA has also reported on a number of other ethics cases. Among these are the outrage of Franz Boas (1858–1942) at the use of anthropology as a cover for espionage during World War I and debates about the authenticity of the autobiography of the 1992 Nobel Peace Prize winner, the Guatemalan peasant activist Rigoberta Menchú.

Psychology Cases

In psychology, cases are both more numerous and more contentious than in anthropology. One commonly discussed early case in psychology involved the work of John B. Watson (1878–1958), who espoused a strong form of behaviorism. Some people vigorously question the quality of his study, known as Little Albert, that supposedly showed conditioned fear of a stuffed toy rabbit in a baby (Cohen 1979). Whatever the final settlement of the argument regarding Watson's work, there is no doubt that later, starting in the 1980s, such cases would have been judged scientific misconduct by social scientists.

It should be noted, however, that many social scientists were working in biomedical areas. The first such publicized case was that of Stephen E. Breuning, a psychologist studying the effects of psychoactive medications on the behavior of a vulnerable population, the institutionalized mentally retarded, people societies typically strongly protect. Neuroleptic medications, commonly known as tranquilizers, are often given to the mentally retarded to control aggressive and self-injurious behavior. Breuning was conducting studies on these neuroleptic medications, but was collecting little data. Instead he was fabricating data indicating that such medications were harmful to the patients' learning and behavior. Thus, he was strongly suggesting on the basis of fabricated data that removing medications from these vulnerable patients might be helpful to them.

In December 1983 Robert L. Sprague reported Breuning's fraud to the appropriate federal agency that was funding his research, the National Institute of Mental Health. The agency began an investigation that moved with glacierlike speed even in this crucially important health area. Although there were publications in the scientific press about the slowness of the investigation in this important case (Holden 1986), the agency did not issue its first report until April 1987—more than three years after receiving smoking-gun evidence of scientific misconduct (NIMH 1987). Breuning was the first independent scientist with his own federal research grant to be indicted, tried, and found guilty of fraud in federal court. Considering the seriousness of his offenses, his sentence was light; he served no jail time, but was confined to a halfway house for sixty nights and fined $11,352 (Wilcox 1991).

Another important case in psychology was that of Marion Perlmutter, a psychologist at the University of Michigan who plagiarized the research proposals of Carolyn Phinney, also at Michigan. When confronted with an accusation by Phinney, Perlmutter denied any wrongdoing and the university officials initially supported her (Gordon 1991). When Phinney could not obtain justice through university channels, she was the first victim of scientific misconduct to turn to the courts for relief (Gordon 1993). After a trial in Ann Arbor, Michigan, Phinney was awarded $1 million in damages for theft of intellectual property and research proposals. University officials unwisely followed Perlmutter's request to appeal. The appellate court upheld the trial court and added to the damage award interest because of the years of delay while the appeal process took its course, increasing the award to $1.6 million (Hilts 1997).

Assessment

These are only a few of the more than 300 cases on which data have been collected by Sprague since his discovery and disclosure of the Breuning fraud. Drawing on these and other cases in the social sciences, it is possible to argue three points. First, it is likely that there are more cases of misconduct in the biomedical sciences than in the social sciences (Shamoo and Resnik 2003). One reason for this discrepancy may be that large profits are often involved in research leading to new medications, which is seldom the case in the social sciences. The potential for making large profits seems to bring out the worst in human beings, including scientific researchers.

Second, during the 1990s universities were sluggish in recognizing misconduct problems among their faculty and slow in taking corrective actions. This was as true in the social as in any other sciences.

Third, times have changed, and the situation has improved in the social sciences as elsewhere—though the situation could hardly be termed ideal. There is hope for continued improvement with federally mandated training for graduate students and federal requirements that universities maintain written policies addressing scientific integrity. Furthermore, there has been a sharp increase in the awareness of scientific misconduct among researchers.

Despite this increased awareness, one must be careful to distinguish cases of misconduct in the social sciences from research that is simply controversial. Twin studies, IQ studies, and race studies, for instance, are sometimes mentioned as cases of scientific misconduct. But although research in these areas may have been very controversial, this does not mean that they involved scientific fraud or misconduct. They may have poorly designed or unwise. Still, misconduct and controversy must be distinguished.

ROBERT L. SPRAGUE CARL MITCHAM

SEE ALSO Sociological Ethics.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Anthropological Association (AAA). (2002). Final Report of the AAA El Dorado Task Force. Arlington, VA: Author. Also available from http://aaanet.org/edtf/index.htm.

Arias, Arturo, ed. (2001). The Rigoberta Menchú Controversy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Cohen, David. (1979). J. B. Watson: The Founder of Behaviourism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Côte, James E. (2000). "The Mead–Freeman Controversy in Review." Journal of Youth and Adolescence 29(5): 525–538. The introduction to a theme issue on the Mead–Freeman controversy that includes four other articles and some historical documentation.

Freeman, Derek. (1983). Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making and Unmaking of an Anthropological Myth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gordon, G. (1991). "Academic Fraud Charged at U-M." Detroit News 3A, 5A. Newspaper report on the Perlmutter case.

Gordon, G. (1993). "Misconduct Costs U-M $1 Million." Detroit News. Another newspaper report on Perlmutter.

Hilts, Philip J. (1997). "University Pays $1.6 Million to Researcher." New York Times August 10, p. 10.

Holden, Constance. (1986). "NIMH Review of Fraud Charge Moves Slowly." Science 234: 1488–1489. A report on the Breuning case.

"Jury Awards $1.1 Million to Researcher." (1993). Ypsilanti (Mich.) Press. On the Perlmutter case.

Mead, Margaret. (1928). Coming of Age in Samoa: A Psychological Study of Primitive Youth for Western Civilisation. New York: Morrow.

National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). Panel to Investigate Allegations of Misconduct. (1987). Report and Recommendations of the Panel. Author.

"Psychologist Pleads Guilty to Research Fraud." (1988). Psychiatric Times, 21. On the Breuning case.

Shamoo, Adil E., and David B. Resnik. (2003). Responsible Conduct of Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sprague, Robert L. (1993). "Whistleblowing: A Very Unpleasant Avocation." Ethics and Behavior 3(1): 103–133.

Tierney, Patrick. (2000). Darkness in El Dorado: How Scientists and Journalists Devastated the Amazon. New York: Norton.

Wilcox, B. (1991). "Fraud in Scientific Research: The Prosecutor's Approach." Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance 2: 139–151.