When there are no consequences for misconduct: Parallels between politics and science

 

Gustave Doré: Illustration for Paradise Lost

(Updated 17 Dec 2022) 

As children, we grow up with stories of the battle between good and evil, but good ultimately triumphs. In adulthood, we know things can be more complicated: bad people can get into positions of power and make everyone suffer.  And yet, we tell ourselves, we have a strong legal framework, there are checks and balances, and a political system aspires to be free and fair.

 

During the last decade, I started for the first time to have serious doubts about those assumptions. In both the UK and the US, the same pattern is seen repeatedly: the media report on a scandal involving the government or a public figure, there is a brief period of public outrage, but then things continue as before.

 

In the UK we have become accustomed to politicians lying to Parliament and failing to correct the record, to bullying by senior politicians, and to safety regulations being ignored.  The current scandal is a case of disaster capitalism where government cronies made vast fortunes from the Covid pandemic by gaining contracts for personal protective equipment – which was not only provided at inflated prices, but then could not be used as it was substandard.

 

These are all shocking stories, but even more shocking is the lack of any serious consequences for those who are guilty. In the past, politicians would have resigned for minor peccadilloes, with pressure from the Prime Minister if need be. During Boris Johnson’s premiership, however, the Prime Minister was part of the problem. 

 

During the Trump presidency in the US, Sarah Kendzior wrote about “saviour syndrome”  - the belief people had that someone would come along and put things right. As she noted: “Mr. Trump has openly committed crimes and even confessed to crimes: What is at stake is whether anyone would hold him accountable.” And, sadly, the answer has been no.

 

No consequences for scientific fraud

So what has this got to do with science?  Well, I get the same sinking feeling that there is a major problem, everyone can see there's a problem, but nobody is going to rescue us. Researchers who engage in obvious malpractice repeatedly get away with no consequences.  This has been a recurring theme from those who have exposed academic papermills (Byrne et al., 2021) and/or reported manipulation of figures in journal articles (Bik et al., 2016).  For instance, when Bik was interviewed by Nature, she noted that 60-70% of the 800 papers she had reported to journals had not been dealt with within 5 years. That matches my more limited experience; if one points out academic malpractice to publishers or institutions, there is often no reply. Those who do reply typically say they will investigate, but then you hear no more.

 

At a recent symposium on Research Integrity at Liverpool Medical Institution*, David Sanders (Purdue University) told of repeated experiences of being given the brush-off by journals and institutions when reporting suspect papers. For instance, he reported an article that had simply recycled a table from a previous paper on a different topic. The response was “We will look into it”. “What”, said David incredulously, “is there to look into?”. This is the concern – that there can be blatant evidence of malpractice within a paper, yet the complainant is ignored. In this case, nothing happened. There are honorable exceptions, but it seems shocking that serious and obvious errors in work are not dealt with in a prompt and professional manner.

 

At the same seminar, there was a searing presentation by Peter Wilmshurst, whose experiences of exposing medical fraud by powerful individuals and organisations have led him to be the subject of numerous libel complaints.  Here are a few details of two of the cases he presented:

 

Paolo Macchiarini:  Convicted in 2022 of causing bodily harm with an experimental transplant of a synthetic windpipe that he performed between 2011-2012.  Wilmshurst noted that the descriptions of the experimental surgery in journals were incorrect. For a summary see this BMJ article.   A 2008 paper by Macchiarini and colleagues is still published in the Lancet, despite demands for it to be retracted. 

 

Don Poldermans: An eminent cardiologist who conducted a series of studies on perioperative betablockers, leading them to be recommended in guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology,  whose task force he chaired. A meta-analysis challenged that conclusion, showing mortality increased; an investigation found that work by Poldermans had serious integrity problems, and he was fired. Nevertheless, the papers have not been retracted. Wilmshurst estimated that thousands of deaths would have resulted from physicians following the guidelines recommending betablockers.

 

The week before the Liverpool meeting, there was a session on Correcting the Record at AIMOS2022.  The four speakers, John Loadsman (anaesthesiology), Ben Mol (Obstetrics and Gynecology), Lisa Parker (Oncology) and Jana Christopher (image integrity) covered the topic from a range of different angles, but in every single talk, the message came through loud and clear: it’s not enough to flag up cases of fraud – you have to then get someone to act on them, and that is far more difficult than it should be.

 

And then on the same day as the Liverpool meeting, Le Monde ran a piece about a researcher whose body of work contained numerous problems: the same graphs were used across different articles that purported to show different experiments, and other figures had signs of manipulation.  There was an investigation by the institution and by the funder, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), which concluded that there had been several breaches of scientific integrity. However, it seems that the recommendation was simply that the papers should be “corrected”.

 

Why is scientific fraud not taken seriously?

There are several factors that conspire to get scientific fraud brushed under the carpet.

1.     Accusations of fraud may be unfounded. In science, as in politics, there may be individuals or organisations who target people unfairly – either for personal reasons, or because they don’t like their message. Furthermore, everyone makes mistakes and it would be dangerous to vilify researchers for honest errors. So it is vital to do due diligence and establish the facts. In practice, however, this typically means giving the accused the benefit of the doubt, even when the evidence of misconduct is strong.  While it is not always easy to demonstrate intent, there are many cases, such as those noted above, where a pattern of repeated transgressions is evident in published papers – and yet nothing is done.  

2.     Conflict of interest. Institutions may be reluctant to accept that someone is fraudulent if that person occupies a high-ranking role in the organisation, especially if they bring in grant income. Worries about reputational risk also create conflict of interest. The Printeger project is a set of case studies of individual research misconduct cases, which illustrates just how inconsistently these are handled in different countries, especially with regard to transparency vs confidentiality of process. It concluded “The reflex of research organisations to immediately contain and preferably minimise misconduct
cases is remarkable”.

3.     Passing the buck. Publishers may be reluctant to retract papers unless there is an institutional finding of misconduct, even if there is clear evidence that the published work is wrong. I discussed this here.  My view is that leaving flawed research in the public record is analogous to a store selling poisoned cookies to customers – you have a responsibility to correct the record as soon as possible when the evidence is clear to avoid harm to consumers. Funders might be expected to also play a role in correcting the record when research they have funded is shown to be flawed. Where public money is concerned, funders surely have a moral responsibility to ensure it is not wasted on fraudulent or sloppy research. Yet in her introduction to the Liverpool seminar, Patricia Murray noted that the new UK Committee on Research Integrity (CORI) does not regard investigation of research misconduct as within its purview.  

4.     Concerns about litigation. Organisations often have concerns that they will be sued if they make investigations of misconduct public, even if they are confident that misconduct occurred. These concerns are justified, as can be seen from the lawsuits that most of the sleuths who spoke at AIMOS and Liverpool have been subjected to.  My impression is that, provided there is clear evidence of misconduct, the fraudsters typically lose libel actions, but I’d be interested in more information on that point.

 

 

Consequences when misconduct goes unpunished

 

The lack of consequences for misconduct has many corrosive impacts on society. 

 

1.     Political and scientific institutions can only operate properly if there is trust. If lack of integrity is seen to be rewarded, this erodes public confidence. 

 

2.     People depend on us getting things right. We are confronting major challenges to health and to our environment. If we can’t trust researchers to be honest, then we all suffer as scientific progress stalls.  Over-hyped findings that make it into the literature can lead subsequent generations of researchers to waste time pursuing false leads.  Ultimately, people are harmed if we don’t fix fraud.

 

3.     Misconduct leads to waste of resources. It is depressing to think of all the research that could have been supported by the funds that have been spent on fraudulent studies.

 

4.     People engage in misconduct because in a competitive system, it brings them personal benefits, in terms of prestige, tenure, power and salary. If the fraudsters are not tackled, they end up in positions of power, where they will perpetuate a corrupt system; it is not in their interests to promote those who might challenge them.

 

5.     The new generation entering the profession will become cynical if they see that one needs to behave corruptly in order to succeed. They are left with the stark choice of joining in the corruption or leaving the field.

 

 

What can be done?

 

There’s no single solution, but I think there are several actions that are needed to help clean up the mess.

 

1.     Appreciate the scale of the problem.

When fraud is talked about in scientific circles, you typically get the response that “fraud is rare” and “science is self-correcting”.  A hole has been blown in the first assumption by the emergence of industrial-scale fraud in the form of academic paper-mills . The large publishers are now worried enough about this to be taking concerted action to detect papermill activity, and some of them have engaged in mass retractions of fraudulent work (see, e.g. the case of IEEE retractions here). Yet, I have documented on PubPeer numerous new papermill articles in Hindawi special issues appearing since September of this year, when the publisher announced it would be engaging in retraction of 500 papers. It’s as if the publisher is trying to clean up with a mop while a fire-hose is spewing out fraudulent content.  This kind of fraud is different from that reported by Wilmshurst, but it illustrates just how slow the business of correcting the scientific record can be – even when the evidence for fraud is unambiguous. 

Publishers trying to mop up papermill outputs

 

Yes, self-correction will ultimately happen in science, when people find they cannot replicate the flawed research on which they try to build. But the time-scale for such self-correction is often far longer than it needs to be.  We have to understand just how much waste of time and money is caused by reliance on a passive, natural evolution of self-correction, rather than a more proactive system to root out fraud.  

 

2.     Full transparency

There’s been a fair bit of debate about open data, and now it is recognised that we also need open code (scripts to generate figures etc.) to properly evaluate results. I would go further, though, and say we also need open peer review. This need not mean that the peer reviewer is identified, but just that their report is available for others to read. I have found open peer reviews very useful in identifying papermill products.

 

3.     Develop shared standards

Organisations such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) give recommendations for editors about how to respond when an accusation of misconduct occurs.  Although this looks like a start in specifying standards to which reputable journals should adhere, several speakers at the AIMOS meeting suggested that COPE guidelines were not suited for dealing with papermills and could actually delay and obfuscate investigations. Furthermore, COPE has no regulatory power and publishers are under no obligation to follow the guidelines (even if they state they will do so).

 

4.     National bodies for promoting scientific integrity

The Printeger project (cited above) noted that “A typical reaction of a research organisation facing unfamiliar research misconduct without appropriate procedures is to set up ad hoc investigative committees, usually consisting of in-house senior researchers…. Generally, this does not go well.”

In response to some high-profile cases that did not go well, some countries have set up national bodies for promoting scientific integrity. These are growing in number, but those who report cases to them often complain that they are not much help when fraud is discovered – sometimes this is because they lack the funding to defend a legal challenge. But, as with shared standards, this is at least a start, and they may help gather data on the scale and nature of the problem.  

 

5.     Transparent discussion of breaches of research integrity

Perhaps the most effective way of persuading institutions, publishers and funders to act is by publicising when they have failed to respond adequately to complaints.  David Sanders described a case where journals and institutions took no action despite multiple examples of image manipulation and plagiarism from one lab.  He only got a response when the case was featured in the New York Times.

Nevertheless, as the Printeger project noted, relying on the media to highlight fraud is far from ideal – there can a tendency to sensationalise and simplify the story, with potential for disproportionate damage to both accused and whistleblowers. If we had trustworthy and official channels to report suspected research misconduct, then whistleblowers would be less likely to seek publicity through other means.

 

6.     Protect whistleblowers

In her introduction to the Liverpool Research Integrity seminar, Patricia Murray noted the lack of consistency in institutional guidelines on research integrity. In some cases, the approach to whistleblowers seemed hostile, with the guidelines emphasising that they would be guilty of misconduct if they were found to have made frivolous, vexatious and/or malicious allegations. This, of course, is fair enough, but it needs to be countered by recommendations that allow for whistleblowers who are none of these things, who are doing the institution a service by casting light on serious problems. Indeed, Prof Murray noted that in her institution, failure to report an incident that gives reasonable suspicion of research misconduct is itself regarded as misconduct.  At present, whistleblowers are often treated as nuisances or cranks who need to be shut down. As was evident from the cases of both Sanders and Wilmshurst, they are at risk of litigation, and careers may be put in jeopardy if they challenge senior figures.

 

7.     Changing the incentive structure in science

It’s well-appreciated that if you really want to stop a problem, you should understand what causes it and stop it at source. People do fraudulent research because the potential benefits are large and the costs seem negligible.  We can change that balance by, on the one hand having serious and public sanctions for those who commit fraud, and on the other hand, rewarding scientists who emphasise integrity, transparency and accuracy in their work, rather than those that get flashy, eyecatching results.

 

I'm developing my ideas on this topic and I welcome thoughts on these suggestions. Comments are moderated and so do not appear immediately, but I will post any that are on topic and constructive.  

Update 17th December 2022  

Jennifer Byrne suggested one further recommendation, as follows:

To change the incentive structure in scientific publishing. Journals are presently rewarded for publishing, as publishing drives both income (through subscriptions and/or open access charges) and the journal impact factor. In contrast, journals and publishers do not earn income and are not otherwise rewarded for correcting the literature that they publish. This means that the (seemingly rare) journals that work hard to correct, flag and retract erroneous papers are rewarded identically to journals that appear to do very little. Proactive journals appear to represent a minority, but while there are no incentives for journals to take a proactive approach to published errors and misinformation, it should not be surprising that few journals join their efforts. Until publication and correction are recognized as two sides of the same coin, and valued as such, it seems inevitable that we will see a continued drive towards publishing more and correcting very little, or continuing to value publication quantity over quality.

 

Bibliography 

I'll also add here additional resources. I'm certainly not the first to have made the points in this post, and it may be useful to have other articles gathered together in one place.  

 

Besançon, L., Bik, E., Heathers, J., & Meyerowitz-Katz, G. (2022). Correction of scientific literature: Too little, too late! PLOS Biology, 20(3), e3001572. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001572   

 

Byrne, J. A., Park, Y., Richardson, R. A. K., Pathmendra, P., Sun, M., & Stoeger, T. (2022). Protection of the human gene research literature from contract cheating organizations known as research paper mills. Nucleic Acids Research, gkac1139. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkac1139 

 

Christian, K., Larkins, J., & Doran, M. R. (2022). The Australian academic STEMM workplace post-COVID: a picture of disarray. BioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.12.06.519378 

 

Lévy, R. (2022, December 15). Is it somebody else’s problem to correct the scientific literature? Rapha-z-Lab. https://raphazlab.wordpress.com/2022/12/15/is-it-somebody-elses-problem-to-correct-the-scientific-literature/ 

 

Research misconduct: Theory & Pratico – For Better Science. (n.d.). Retrieved 17 December 2022, from https://forbetterscience.com/2022/08/31/research-misconduct-theory-pratico/   

Star marine ecologist committed misconduct, university says. (n.d.). Retrieved 17 December 2022, from https://www.science.org/content/article/star-marine-ecologist-committed-misconduct-university-says  

Additions on 18th December: Yet more relevant stuff coming to my attention! 

 

Naudet, Florian (2022) Lecture: Busting two zombie trials in a post-COVID world.   

 

Wilmshurst, Peter (2022) Blog: Has COPE membership become a way for unprincipled journals to buy a fake badge of integrity?

 *Addition on 20th December

Liverpool Medical Institution seminar on Research Integrity: The introduction by Patricia Murray, talk by Peter Wilmshurt, and Q&A are now available on Youtube.

And finally.... 

A couple of sobering thoughts:

 

Alexander Trevelyan on Twitter noted  a great quote from the anonymous @mumumouse (author of Research misconduct blogpost above): “To imagine what it’s like to be a whistleblower in the science community, imagine you are trying to report a Ponzi scheme, but instead of receiving help you are told, nonchalantly, to call Bernie Madoff, if you wish." 

 

Peter Wilmshurst started his talk by relaying a conversation with Patricia Murray in the run-up to his talk. He said he planned to talk about the 3 Fs, fabrication, falsification and honesty.

 To which Patricia replied, “There is no F in honesty”. 

(This may take a few moments to appreciate).

 

 

A call for funders to ban institutions that use grant capture targets

I  caused unease on Twitter this week when I criticised a piece in the Times Higher Education on 'How to win a research grant'. As I explained in a series of tweets, I have no objection to experienced grant-holders sharing their pearls of wisdom with other academics: indeed, I've given my own tips in the past. My objection was to the sentiment behind the lede beneath the headline: "Even in disciplines in which research is inherently inexpensive, ‘grant capture’ is increasingly being adopted as a metric to judge academics and universities. But with success rates typically little better than one in five, rejection is the fate of most applications." I made the observation that it might have been better if the Times Higher had noted that grant capture is a stupid way to evaluate academics.

Science is in trouble when the getting of grant funding is seen as an end in itself rather than a means to the end of doing good research, with researchers rewarded in proportion to how much money they bring in. I've rehearsed the arguments for this view more than once on my blog (see, e.g. here); many of these points were anticipated by Raphael Gillett in 1991, long before 'grant capture' became widespread as an explicit management tool. Although my view is shared by some other senior figures (see, e.g., this piece by John Ioannidis), it is seldom voiced. When I suggested that the best approach to seeking funding was to wait until you had a great idea that you were itching to implement, the patience of my followers snapped. It was clear that to many people working in academia, this view is seen as naive and unrealistic. Quite simply, it's a case of get funded or get fired. When I started out, use of funding success may have been used informally to rate academics, but now it is often explicit, sometimes to the point whereby expected grant income targets are specified.

Encouraging more and more grant submissions is toxic, both for researchers and for science, but everyone feels trapped. So how could we escape from this fix?

I think the solution has to be down to funders. They should be motivated to tackle the problem for several reasons.

• First, they are inundated with far more proposals than they can fund - to the extent that many of them use methods of "demand management" to stem the tide. 
• Second, if people are pressurised into coming up with research projects in order to become or remain employed, this is not likely to lead to particularly good research. We might expect quality of proposals to improve if people are encouraged to take time to develop and hone a great idea.
• Third, although peer review of grants is generally thought to be the best among various unsatisfactory options for selecting grants, it is known to have poor reliability, and there is an element of lottery as to who gets funded. There's a real risk that, with grant capture being used as a metric, many researchers are being lost from the system because they were unlucky rather than untalented. 
• Fourth, if people are evaluated in terms of the amount of funding they acquire, they will be motivated to make their proposals as expensive as possible: this cannot be in the interests of the funders.

Funders have considerable power in their hands and they can use it to change the culture. This was neatly demonstrated when the Athena SWAN charter started up, originally focused on improving gender equality in STEMM subjects. Institutions paid lip service to it, but there was little action until the Chief Medical Officer, Sally Davies, declared that to be eligible for biomedical funding from NIHR, institutions would have to have a Silver Athena SWAN award.  This raising of the stakes concentrated the minds of Vice Chancellors to an impressive degree.

My suggestion is that major funders such as Research England,  Wellcome Trust and Cancer Research UK could at a stroke improve research culture in the UK by implementing a rule whereby any institution that used grant capture as a criterion for hiring, firing or promotion would be ineligible to host grants. 

Reference
Gillett, R. (1991). Pitfalls in assessing research performance by grant income. Scientometrics, 22(2), 253-263.

Prospecting for kryptonite: the value of null results

-->  

This blogpost doesn't say anything new – it just uses a new analogy (at least new to me) to make a point about the value of null results from well-designed studies. I was thinking about this after reading this blogpost by Anne Scheel.

Think of science like prospecting for kryptonite in an enormous desert. There's a huge amount of territory out there, and very little kryptonite. Suppose also that the fate of the human race depends crucially on finding kryptonite deposits.

Most prospectors don't find kryptonite. Not finding kryptonite is disappointing: it feels like a lot of time and energy has been wasted, and the prospector leaves empty-handed. But the failure is nonetheless useful. It means that new prospectors won't waste their time looking for kryptonite in places where it doesn't exist.  If, however, someone finds kryptonite, everyone gets very excited and there is a stampede to rush to the spot where it was discovered.

Contemporary science works a bit like this, except that the whole process is messed up by reporting bias and poor methods which lead to false information.

To take reporting bias first: suppose the prospector who finds nothing doesn't bother to tell anyone. Then others may come back to the same spot and waste time also finding nothing. Of course, some scientists are like prospectors in that they are competitive and would like to prevent other people from getting useful information. Having a competitor bogged down in a blind alley may be just what they want for their rivals. But where there is an urgent need for new discovery, there needs to be a collaborative rather than competitive approach, to speed up discovery and avoid waste of scarce funds. In this context, null results are very useful.

False information can come from the prospector who declares there is no kryptonite on the basis of a superficial drive through a region. This is like the researcher who does an underpowered study that gets an inconclusive null result. It doesn't allow us to map out the region with kryptonite-rich and kryptonite-empty areas – it just leaves us having to go back and look again more thoroughly. Null results from poorly designed studies are not much use to anyone.

But the worst kind of false information is fool's kryptonite: someone declares they have found kryptonite, but they haven't. So everyone rushes off to that spot to try and find their own kryptonite, only to find they have been deceived. So there are a lot of wasted resources and broken hearts. For a prospector who has been misled in this way, this situation is worse than just not finding any kryptonite, because their hopes have been raised and they may have put a disproportionate amount of effort and energy into pursuing the false information.

Pre-registering a study is the equivalent of a prospectors declaring publicly that they are doing a comprehensive survey of a specific region, and will declare what they have found, so that the map can gradually be filled in, with no duplication of effort.

Some will say, what about exploratory research? Of course the prospector may hit lucky and find some other useful mineral that nobody had anticipated. If so, that's great, and it may even turn out more important than kryptonite. But the point I want to stress is that the norm for most prospectors is that they won't find kryptonite or anything else. Really exciting findings occur rarely, yet our current incentive structures create the impression that you have to find something amazing to be valued as a scientist.  It would make more sense to reward those who do a good job of prospecting, producing results that add to our knowledge and can be built upon.

I'll leave the last word to Ottoline Leyser, who in an interview for The Life Scientific said: "There's an awful lot of talk about ground-breaking research…. Ground-breaking is what you do when you start a building. You go into a field and you dig a hole in the ground. If you're only rewarded for ground-breaking research, there's going to be a lot of fields with a small hole in, and no buildings."

Why does so much research go unpublished?

As described in my last blogpost, I attended an excellent symposium on waste in research this week. A recurring theme was research that never got published. Rosalind Smyth described her experience of sitting on the funding panel of a medium-sized charity. The panel went to great pains to select the most promising projects, and would end a meeting with a sense of excitement about the great work that they were able to fund. A few years down the line, though, they'd find that many of the funds had been squandered. The work had either not been done, or had been completed but not published.

In order to tackle this problem, we need to understand the underlying causes. Sometimes, as Robert Burns noted, the best-laid schemes go wrong. Until you've tried to run a few research projects, it's hard to imagine the myriad different ways in which life can conspire to mess up your plans. The eight laws of psychological research formulated by Hodgson and Rollnick are as true today as they were 25 years ago.

But much research remains unpublished despite being completed. Reasons are multiple, and the strategies needed to overcome them are varied, but here is my list of the top three problems and potential solutions.

Inconclusive results

Probably the commonest reason for inconclusive results is lack of statistical power. A study is undertaken in the fond hope that a difference will be found between condition X and condition Y, and if the difference is found, there is great rejoicing and a rush to publish. A negative result should also be of interest, provided the study was well-designed and adequately motivated. But if the sample is small, then we can't be sure whether our failure to observe the effect is because it is absent: a real but small effect could be swamped by noise. 

I think the solution to this problem lies in the hands of funding panels and researchers: quite simply, they need to take statistical power very seriously indeed and to consider carefully whether anything will be learned from a study if the anticipated effects are not obtained. If not, then the research needs to be rethought. In the fields of genetics and clinical trials, it is now recognised that multicentre collaborations are the way forward to ensure that studies are conducted with sufficient power to obtain a conclusive result.

Rejection of completed work by journals

Even well-conducted and adequately powered studies may be rejected by journals if the results are not deemed to be exciting. To solve this problem, we must look to journals. We need recognition that - provided a study is methodologically strong and well-motivated - negative results can be as informative as positive ones. Otherwise we are doomed to waste time and money pursuing false leads.  As Paul Glasziou has emphasised, failure is part of the research process. It is important to tell people about what doesn't work if we are not to repeat our mistakes.

We do now have some journals that will publish negative results, and there is a growing move toward pre-registration of studies, with guaranteed publication if the methods meet quality criteria. But there is still a lot to be done, and we need a radical change of mindset about what kinds of research results are valuable.

Lack of time

Here, I lay the blame squarely on the incentive structures that operate in universities. To get a job, or to get promoted, you need to demonstrate that you can pull in research income. In many UK institutions this is quite explicit, and promotions criteria may give a specific figure to aim for of X thousand pounds research income per annum. There are few UK universities whose strategic plan does not include a statement about increasing research funding. This has changed the culture dramatically;  as Fergus Millar put it: "in the modern British university, it is not that funding is sought in order to carry out research, but that research projects are formulated in order to get funding".

Of course, for research to thrive, our Universities need people who can compete for funding to support their work. But the acquisition of funding has become an end in itself, rather than a means to an end. This has the pernicious effect of driving people to apply for grant after grant, without adequately budgeting for the time it takes to analyse and write up research, or indeed to carefully think about what they are doing.  As I argued previously, even junior researchers these days have an 'academic backlog' of unwritten papers.

At the Lancet meeting there were some useful suggestions for how we might change incentive structures to avoid such waste. Malcolm MacLeod argued researchers should be evaluated not by research income and high-impact publications, but by the quality of their methods, the extent to which their research was fully reported, and the reproducibility of findings. An-Wen Chan echoed this, arguing for performance metrics that recognise full dissemination of research and use of research datasets by other groups. However, we may ask whether such proposals have any chance of being adopted when University funding is directly linked to grant income, and Universities increasingly view themselves as businesses.

I suspect we would need revised incentives to be reflected at the level of those allocating central funding before vice-chancellors took them seriously.  It would, however, be feasible for behaviour to be shaped at the supply end, if funders adopted new guidelines. For a start, they could look more carefully at the time commitments of those to whom grants are given: in my experience this is never taken into consideration, and one can see successful 'fat cats' accumulating grant after grant, as success builds on success. Funders could also monitor more closely the outcomes of grants: Chan noted that NIHR withholds 10% of research funds until a paper based on the research has been submitted for publication. Moves like this could help us change the climate so that an award of a grant would confer responsibility on the recipient to carry through the work to completion, rather than acting solely to embellish the researcher's curriculum vitae.

References

Chan, A., Song, F., Vickers, A., Jefferson, T., Dickersin, K., Gotzsche, P., Krumholz, H. M., Ghersi, D., & van der Worp, H. B. (2014). Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research Lancet (8 Jan ) : 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62296-5

Macleod, M. R., Michie, S., Roberts, I., Dirnagl, U., Chalmers, I., Ioannidis, J. P. A., . . . Glasziou, P. (2014). Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet, 383(9912), 101-104.