Bor Luen Tang

Hofmann and Holm’s (2019) recent survey on issues of research misconduct with PhD graduates culminated with a notable conclusion by the authors: ‘ Scientific misconduct seems to be an environmental issue as much as a matter of personal integrity’. Here, we re-emphasise the usefulness of an education-based countermeasure against toxic research environments or cultures that promote unethical practices amongst the younger researchers. We posit that an adequately conducted course in research ethics and integrity, with a good dose of case studies and analyses, can function in a manner that is metaphorically akin to vaccination. The training would cultivate the ability to analyse and build confidence in young researchers in making decisions with sound moral reasoning as well as in speaking up or arguing against pressure and coercions into unacceptable behaviour. A sufficiently large number of young researchers exposed to research ethics trainings would essentially provide a research community some degree of lasting herd immunity at its broadest base. Beyond passive immunity, a crop of research ethics-savvy young researchers could also play active and influential roles as role models for others at their level and perhaps even help correct the wayward attitudes of some senior researchers and initiate prompt action from institutional policy makers in a bottom-up manner.

Publication pressure has been touted to promote questionable research practices (QRP) and scientific or research misconduct (RM). However, logically attractively as it is, there is no unequivocal evidence for this notion, and empirical studies have produced conflicting results. Other than difficulties in obtaining unbiased empirical data, a direct causal relationship between perceived publication pressure (PPP) and QRP/RM is inherently difficult to establish, because the former is a complex biopsychosocial construct that is variedly influenced by multiple personal and environmental factors. To effectively address QRP/RM by tackling the sources of PPP would also be difficult because of the competitive nature of the reward and merit system of contemporary science. We might do better with efforts in enhancing knowledge in research ethics and integrity among the practitioners, as well as institutional infrastructures and mechanisms to fairly and efficiently adjudicate cases of QRP/RM.

Irregularities in data/results of scientific research might be spotted pre-publication by co-workers and reviewers, or post-publication by readers typically with vested interest. The latter might consist of fellow researchers in the same subject area who would naturally pay closer attention to a published paper. However, it is increasingly apparent that there are readers who interrogate papers in detail with a primary intention to identify potential problems with the work. Here, we consider post-publication peer review (PPPR) by individuals, or groups of individuals, who perform PPPRs with a perceptible intention to actively identify irregularities in published data/results and to expose potential research fraud or misconduct, or intentional misconduct exposing (IME)-PPPR. On one hand, such activities, when done anonymously or pseudonymously with no formal discourse, have been deemed as lacking in accountability, or perceived to incur some degree of maleficence, and have been labelled as vigilantism. On the other, these voluntary works have unravelled many instances of research misconduct and have helped to correct the literature. We explore the tangible benefits of IME-PPPR in detecting errors in published papers and from the perspectives of moral permissibility, research ethics, and the sociological perspective of science. We posit that the benefits of IME-PPPR activities that uncover clear evidence of misconduct, even when performed anonymously or pseudonymously, outweigh their perceived deficiencies. These activities contribute to a vigilant research culture that manifests the self-correcting nature of science, and are in line with the Mertonian norms of scientific ethos.

Misconduct in science is often viewed and analyzed through the lenses of normative ethics and moral philosophy. However, notions and methods in the philosophy of science could also provide rather penetrative explanatory insights into the nature and causes of scientific misconduct. A brief illustration in this regard, using as examples the widely popular Popperian falsification and the Kuhnian scientific paradigm, is provided. In multiple areas of scientific research, failure to seek falsification in a Popperian manner constitutes a questionable research practice and could lead to “falsification” in the context of research misconduct. On the other hand, scientific misconduct is often facilitated by its perpetrators using the familiarity, expectations and confines of a Kuhnian paradigm to blend in fabricated data/results. A rudimentary application of these philosophical notions could be useful in our understanding of the nature and cause of research misconduct, and facilitate mitigation of the latter through educational means.

Research on human-animal chimeras have elicited alarms and prompted debates. Those involving the generation of chimeric brains, in which human brain cells become anatomically and functionally intertwined with their animal counterparts in varying ratios, either via xenografts or embryonic co-development, have been considered the most problematic. The moral issues stem from a potential for “humanization” of the animal brain, as well as speculative changes to the host animals’ consciousness or sentience, with consequential alteration in the animal hosts’ moral status. However, critical background knowledge appears to be missing to resolve these debates. Firstly, there is no consensus on animal sentience vis-à-vis that of humans, and no established methodology that would allow a wholesome and objective assessment of changes in animal sentience resulting from the introduction of human brain cells. Knowledge in interspecies comparative neuropsychology that could allow effective demarcation of a state of “humanization” is also lacking. Secondly, moral status as a philosophical construct has no scientific and objective points of reference. Either changes in sentience or humanization effects would remain unclear unless there are some neuroscientific research grounding. For a bioethical stance based on moral status of human-animal brain chimera to make meaningful contributions to regulatory policies, it might first need to be adequately informed by, and with its arguments constructed, in a manner that are factually in line with the science. In may be prudent for approved research projects involving the generation of human-animal brain chimera to have a mandatory component of assessing plausible changes in sentience.

Questionable research practices (QRPs) and research misconduct (RM) involving university scientists waste resources and erode public trust in science and academia. Theories put forth for the occurrence of these transgressions have ranged conceptually from that of errant individuals (“bad apple”) to an environment/culture which is conducive for, if not promotive of, QRP/RM (“bad barrel”), or a combination of both. These ideas appear to provide explanations for lapses in epistemic responsibility and offer reasons for instances of transgression. Some have even argued that scientific conclusions need not be accurate, justified, or believed by their authors. I take the opposite view and instead argue that academic research should be carried out such that a scientist’s fundamental commitment to their epistemic responsibility triumphs over all reasons and incentives to err. In other words, carrying out and publishing research in which the results are authentic and veracious to the best of the scientist’s knowledge and ability should be a default state of mind, a preferred path of action, or a moral axiom. This is a notion that should permeate any courses on research ethics and integrity.

The recent emergence of reprogramming technologies to convert brain cell types or epigenetically alter neurons and neural progenitors in vivo and in situ hold significant promises in brain repair and neuronal aging reversal. However, given the significant epigenetic and transcriptomic changes to components of the existing neuronal cells and network, we question if these reprogramming technology might inadvertently alter or erase memory engrams, conceivably resulting in changes in narrative identity or personality. We suggest that the nature of these alterations might be less predictable compared to memory and personality changes known to be associated with diseases, drugs or brain stimulation therapies. While research in applying reprogramming technologies to neurological ailments and aging should continue, more targeted analyses should be put in place in animal experiments to gauge the severity and degree of memory alterations, and appropriate risk and benefit analyses should be conducted before these technologies move into human trials.

Proteins of the exocytotic (secretory) pathway are initially targeted to the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) and then translocated across and/or inserted into the membrane of the ER. During their anterograde transport with the bulk of the membrane flow along the exocytotic pathway, some proteins are selectively retained in various intracellular compartments, while others are sorted to different branches of the pathway. The signals or structural motifs that are involved in these selective targeting processes are being revealed and investigations into the mechanistic nature of these processes are actively underway.

A retraction notice is a formal announcement for the removal of a paper from the literature, which is a weighty matter. Xu et al. (Science and Engineering Ethics, 29(4), 25 2023) reported that 73.7% of retraction notices indexed by the Web of Science (1927–2019) provided no information about institutional investigations that may have led to the retractions, and recommended that Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) retraction guidelines should make it mandatory to disclose institutional investigations leading to retractions in such notices. While this recommendation would add to the transparency of the retraction process, a blanket mandate as such could be potentially problematic. For research misconduct (RM)-positive cases, a mandatory investigative disclosure may be abused by some to deflect responsibility. More importantly, a mandatory disclosure could harm authors and institutions in RM-negative cases (i.e. those stemming from honest errors with no misconduct). I illustrate with case vignettes the potential epistemic injustice and confusion that a mandate for investigation disclosure in retraction notices could incur, and suggest a more nuanced approach to its implementation.

Alzheimer’s disease (AD), the devastating and most prevailing underlying cause for age-associated dementia, has no effective disease-modifying treatment. The last approved drug for the relief of AD symptoms was in 2003. The recent approval of sodium oligomannate (GV-971, 2019) in China and the human antibody aducanumab in the USA (ADUHELM, 2021) therefore represent significant breakthroughs, albeit ones that are fraught with controversy. Here, we explore potential scientific ethics issues associated with GV-971 and aducanumab’s development and approval. While these issues may be belied by socioeconomic and political complexities in the heady business of commercial drug development, they are of fundamental importance to scientific integrity and ultimately, welfare of patients. We posit that the push for approval of both AD drugs based on incomplete research and unconvincing marginal effectiveness is ethically unsound. Regardless of how both these drugs shall perform in the market for the years to come, the scientific ethics issues and potentially questionable research practices should therefore be duly noted and lessons learned.

Bülow and Helgesson discussed the practice of gift/honorary authorships and expounded on a most devious form of these, termed ‘hostage authorship’. The authors drew a parallel of such situations in research and publishing with the problem of ‘dirty hands’. In this case, acceding, albeit with regrets, may well be ‘… what we ought to do, even if it requires us to do something that is intrinsically bad’, especially if ‘this is both practically necessary and proportionate to the end’. Here, I caution against this being a morally cogent, normative course of action. Tangible benefits from research not yet performed or published could not be predicted with any certainty, and as such could not be deemed sufficiently important to override moral constraints of justice and fairness. The utilitarian argument for any measure of beneficence with ‘dirty hands’ could therefore be nothing more than a self-serving act, or a self-exonerating form of moral disengagement. Such actions could have lasting ill effects on junior...

Laboratory safety regulations have been traditionally viewed by its learners and practitioners as a matter of law and policy, which simply requires compliance. A compliance mindset tends be passive and dissociates individuals (or even institutions) from the important reasons and principles underlying the safety rules and regulations, leading to disinterestedness and disdain. I posit that laboratory safety regulations would need to be crafted, presented and taught in a manner that is coupled to, or at least with an emphasis on, research ethics. Learners and practitioners of laboratory safety must be led to fully grasp the ethical underpinnings of the rules and regulations, however perceivably cumbersome or inconvenient the latter may seem. In extended definitions beyond the classical fabrication, falsification and plagiarism, laboratory safety violation (LSV) should indeed be considered a form of research misconduct (RM). A full appreciation of the ethical principles underlying laboratory safety regulations would intuitively make LSVs morally impermissible, and as such defiance would be morally unacceptable. Importantly, LSVs framed as moral transgressions would be equally applied to all perpetrators in terms of culpability regardless of one’s endowment and power status. LSV perpetrators should thus also be punishable in accordance with the federal or institutional laws or bylaws of research ethics and integrity. Pedagogical and content modifications to laboratory safety education to adequately reflect a research ethics emphasis, as well as promotion of epistemic acuity in this regard, would be desirable.

The graduate course in research ethics in the Graduate School for Integrative Sciences and Engineering at the National University of Singapore consists of a semester long mandatory course titled: “Research Ethics and Scientific Integrity.” The course provides students with guiding principles for appropriate conduct in the professional and social settings of scientific research and in making morally weighted and ethically sound decisions when confronted with moral dilemmas. It seeks to enhance understanding and appreciation of the moral reasoning underpinning various rules and legislative constraints associated with research subjects and procedures. Further, students are trained to critically analyse cases and issues associated with scientific misconduct preparing them to act in a responsible and effective manner should they encounter such cases. The diverse background and training of the cohort also provide a unique setting and opportunity for student-initiated collaborative interdisciplinary learning. This article offers a reflective account of the course and some preliminary insights into learning outcomes.

Cases of research misconduct in the ecological and environmental sciences appear to be relatively rare. A controversial paper published in Science in 2016 documenting the effects of microplastics on the feeding and innate behaviours of fish larvae has recently been retracted, with the authors found guilty of scientific misconduct. In addition to the expected fallout, such as individual and institutional reputational damage from a research misconduct finding, this case has two possibly wider-ranging ramifications. Firstly, there may be a presumptive notion that a strong negative effect could be more successfully published than a neutral effect. This presumption would belie the true stringency and rigor of research adopted by workers in the field. Secondly, the case may have a negative impact on the public’s perception of and trust in legitimate and good science that addresses critical environmental issues, such as anthropogenic climate change.

Scientific research is supposed to acquire or generate knowledge, but such a purpose would be severely undermined by instances of research misconduct (RM) and questionable research practices (QRP). RM and QRP are often framed in terms of moral transgressions by individuals (bad apples) whose aberrant acts could be made conducive by shortcomings in regulatory measures of organizations or institutions (bad barrels). This notion presupposes, to an extent, that the erring parties know exactly what they are doing is wrong and morally culpable, but had nonetheless proceeded to commit wrongful acts. However, a confession of intent to deceived is often not readily admitted by perpetrators of RM. I posit that beyond the simplistic notion of conscious moral transgression, deficits in epistemic virtues and/or the prevalence of epistemic vices have important roles to play in initiating and driving RM/QRP. For the individual perpetrator, deficits in epistemic virtues could lead to or amplify errors in one’s desperate attempt to be accomplished or to excel, and pushes one across the ethical line or down the slippery slope of misconduct. Likewise, a lack of epistemic virtue within perpetrators’ institution or organization could make it conducive for deceitful acts and suppress indications and warning signs for the former. Furthermore, epistemic vices exhibited by reviewers, editors and journals could also promote RM/QRP. In this view, epistemic failings, rather than widespread moral deficiencies of individuals within the research ecosystem, may underlie the prevalence of RM/QRP.

Unregulated patient treatments and approved clinical trials have been conducted with haematopoietic stem cells and mesenchymal stem cells for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). While the former direct-to-consumer practice is usually considered rogue and should be legally constrained, regulated clinical trials could also be ethically questionable. Here, we outline principal objections against these trials as they are currently conducted. Notably, these often lack a clear rationale for how transplanted cells may confer a therapeutic benefit in ASD, and thus, have ill-defined therapeutic outcomes. We posit that ambiguous and unsubstantiated descriptions of outcome from such clinical trials may nonetheless appeal to the lay public as being based on authentic scientific findings. These may further fuel caregivers of patients with ASD to pursue unregulated direct-to-consumer treatments, thus exposing them to unnecessary risks. There is, therefore, a moral obligation on the part of those regulating and conducting clinical trials of stem cell-based therapeutic for ASD minors to incorporate clear therapeutic targets, scientific rigour and reporting accuracy in their work. Any further stem cell-based trials for ASD unsupported by significant preclinical advances and particularly sound scientific hypothesis and aims would be ethically indefensible.

Laboratory safety regulations have been traditionally viewed by its learners and practitioners as a matter of law and policy, which simply requires compliance. A compliance mindset tends be passive and dissociates individuals (or even institutions) from the important reasons and principles underlying the safety rules and regulations, leading to disinterestedness and disdain. I posit that laboratory safety regulations would need to be crafted, presented and taught in a manner that is coupled to, or at least with an emphasis on, research ethics. Learners and practitioners of laboratory safety must be led to fully grasp the ethical underpinnings of the rules and regulations, however perceivably cumbersome or inconvenient the latter may seem. In extended definitions beyond the classical fabrication, falsification and plagiarism, laboratory safety violation (LSV) should indeed be considered a form of research misconduct (RM). A full appreciation of the ethical principles underlying laboratory safety regulations would intuitively make LSVs morally impermissible, and as such defiance would be morally unacceptable. Importantly, LSVs framed as moral transgressions would be equally applied to all perpetrators in terms of culpability regardless of one’s endowment and power status. LSV perpetrators should thus also be punishable in accordance with the federal or institutional laws or bylaws of research ethics and integrity. Pedagogical and content modifications to laboratory safety education to adequately reflect a research ethics emphasis, as well as promotion of epistemic acuity in this regard, would be desirable.