A witness protection program for science

Abstract

Researchers are increasingly aware that fabrication of results, plagiarism, and concealing conflict of interests are unacceptable behavior that can harm scientific research and reputations (http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics\_code-of-conduct\_en.pdf; https://www.nap.edu/catalog/21896/fostering-integrity-in-research). Nonetheless, real change is occurring only slowly—if at all. One of the reasons for this glacial pace of change is the conflict of interest that lies at the center of addressing integrity issues: Everyone knows what they should do, but many researchers are reluctant to harm their careers by acting ethically [1]. All scientists are acutely aware that whistleblowing is a serious step that could ruin careers, including their own. Indeed, the available evidence shows that whistleblowers are not treated well by their institutions, and often end up losing their positions [2] or diminish their prospects of finding a new position elsewhere. This raises serious questions for integrity structures and processes. If researchers are obliged to raise concerns when they witness misconduct, yet protection for whistleblowers at many institutions is woefully inadequate, current integrity systems are in effect asking them to sacrifice their careers in the name of research integrity. This in turn means that the research integrity system itself lacks integrity, because it relies on people with integrity reporting people without integrity, at great personal cost. Failing to protect whistleblowers or to discipline transgressors is not only unfair and contrary to the principles of research integrity, it also sends an appalling message: Don't make waves or you'll drown …