Title: Article Fails to Cite “Historical” Data
Author: Anji Wall
Description: A colleague discovers that no one conducted experiments on the control but rather a post-doctorate used historical data collected from previous studies as the control group.
Keyword(s): Mentor-Trainee Relationship, Research Misconduct, Scientific Integrity
Based On: (Shamoo & Resnik, 2003, p. 113)
Case: A postdoctoral fellow published a paper on the chemical properties of a newly discovered compound. The properties of this compound in blood drawn from experimental animals was substantially different from that drawn from the control group. This difference was statistically significant and was his paper’s major finding. A few months later the postdoc’s mentor was given anonymous information that proved that the control experiments had been fabricated, and the data used for comparison was drawn from prior studies. When asked by his mentor, he replied that he was taught that it was appropriate to use historical data for this purpose, but did admit that he did not properly cite the source for the data in his paper.
- Does the postdoc’s use of the historical data for controls constitute research misconduct?
- Did the whistleblower behave appropriately? Should he have informed the postdoc of his finding and decision to speak with the postdoc’s mentor?
- Rather than informing the postdoc’s mentor, would it have been more appropriate for the whistleblower to have informed a university official or the Office of Research Integrity? Should the whistleblower have informed the journal, insisting that a correction be published?
- What options does the postdoc’s mentor have now? Which one/ones should he seriously consider? Why?
Source: Shamoo, A., & Resnik, D. (2003). Responsible Conduct of Research. New York: Oxford University Press.