Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Research misconduct and data fraud in clinical trials: prevalence and causal factors

  • Review Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Clinical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Letter to the Editor to this article was published on 02 June 2016

Abstract

The disclosure of cases of research misconduct in clinical trials, conventionally defined as fabrication, falsification or plagiarism, has been a disturbingly common phenomenon in recent years. Such cases can potentially harm patients enrolled on the trials in question or patients treated based on the results of those trials and can seriously undermine the scientific and public trust in the validity of clinical trial results. Here, I review what is known about the prevalence of research misconduct in general and the contributing or causal factors leading to the misconduct. The evidence on prevalence is unreliable and fraught with definitional problems and with study design issues. Nevertheless, the evidence taken as a whole seems to suggest that cases of the most serious types of misconduct, fabrication and falsification (i.e., data fraud), are relatively rare but that other types of questionable research practices are quite common. There have been many individual, institutional and scientific factors proposed for misconduct but, as is the case with estimates of prevalence, reliable empirical evidence on the strength and relative importance of these factors is lacking. However, it seems clear that the view of misconduct as being simply the result of aberrant or self-delusional personalities likely underestimates the effect of other important factors and inhibits the development of effective prevention strategies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. George SL, Buyse M (2015) Data fraud in clinical trials. Clin Investig (Lond.) 15(2):161–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. George SL (1997) Perspectives on scientific misconduct and fraud in clinical trials. Chance 10(4):3–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Fisher B, Redmond CK (1994) Fraud in breast-cancer trials. N Engl J Med 330(20):1458–1460

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Weir C, Murray G (2011) Fraud in clinical trials. Significance 8(4):164–168. doi:10.1111/j.1740-9713.2011.00521.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Horton R (2000) After Bezwoda. Lancet 355(9208):942–943. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)90006-0

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Weiss RB, Rifkin RM, Stewart FM et al (2000) High-dose chemotherapy for high-risk primary breast cancer: an on-site review of the Bezwoda study. Lancet 355(9208):999–1003

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Eichenwald K, Kolata G (1999) A doctor’s drug studies turn into fraud. The New York times on the Web, A1–A16

  8. Swaminathan V, Avery M (2012) FDA enforcement of criminal liability for clinical investigator fraud. Hastings Sci Tech Law J 4:325–356

    Google Scholar 

  9. Birch DM, Cohen G (2001) How a cancer trial ended in betrayal. http://www.baltimoresun.com/bal-te.research24jun24-story.html#page=1. Accessed 12 Jan 2015

  10. Grant B (2009) Biotech’s baddies. Scientist 23(4):48

    Google Scholar 

  11. Carlisle J (2012) The analysis of 168 randomised controlled trials to test data integrity. Anaesthesia 67(5):521–537

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fujii Y (2000) Reply to “Reported data on granisetron and postoperative nausea and vomiting by Fujii et al. are incredibly nice!” [letter]. Anesth Analg 90(4):1004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Fujii Y (2012) Reply to “The analysis of 168 randomised controlled trials to test data integrity” [letter]. Anaesthesia 67(6):669–670

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kranke P, Apfel CC, Roewer N (2000) Reported data on granisetron and postoperative nausea and vomiting by Fujii et al. are incredibly nice! [letter]. Anesth Analg 90(4):1004

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Miller D (2012) Retraction of articles written by Dr. Yoshitaka Fujii. Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth 59(12):1081–1088. doi:10.1007/s12630-012-9802-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Normile D (2012) A new record for retractions? http://news.sciencemag.org/education/2012/04/newrecord-retractions. Accessed 13 Aug 2015

  17. Baggerly KA, Coombes KR (2009) Deriving chemosensitivity from cell lines: Forensic bioinformatics and reproducible research in high-throughput biology. Ann Appl Stat 3:1309–1334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Oransky I (2014) Novartis Diovan scandal claims two more papers. http://retractionwatch.com/2014/04/02/novartis-diovan-scandal-claims-two-more-papers/. Accessed 4 May 2015

  19. Husten L (2013) Diovan data was fabricated, say Japanese Health Minister and university officials. http://www.forbes.com/sites/larryhusten/2013/07/12/diovan-data-was-fabricated-say-japanese-health-minister-and-university-officials/. Accessed 3 July 2015

  20. Federal Register (2005) Public health service policies on research misconduct final rule (42 CFR part 93.103). http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=0b07ed68cf889962cae6c2b45d89150b&node=pt42.1.93&rgn=div5. Accessed 4 July 2015

  21. National Institutes of Health (2015) Research integrity. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/research_integrity/research_misconduct.htm. Accessed 4 July 2015

  22. Federal Register (2002) National science foundation policies on research misconduct (45 CFR part 689) http://www.nsf.gov/oig/regulations/. Accessed 4 July 2015

  23. American Psychological Association (2015) Research misconduct. https://apa.org/research/responsible/misconduct/index.aspx. Accessed 4 July 2015

  24. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2004) Guidance for industry: the use of clinical holds following clinical investigator misconduct. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/regulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm126997.pdf. Accessed 25 July 2015

  25. Scott-Lichter D, Editorial Policy Committee, Council of Scientific Editors (2006) CSE’s white paper on promoting integrity in scientific journal publications. CSE, Reston

    Google Scholar 

  26. Universities UK (2012) The concordat to support research integrity http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/highereducation/Pages/Theconcordattosupportresearchintegrity.aspx#.VZgN03J3EdU. Accessed 4 July 2015

  27. Breen KJ (2003) Misconduct in medical research: whose responsibility? Intern Med J 33(4):186–191

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Habermann B, Broome M, Pryor ER et al (2010) Research coordinators’ experiences with scientific misconduct and research integrity. Nurs Res 59(1):51–57

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Martinson BC, Anderson MS, De Vries R (2005) Scientists behaving badly. Nature 435(7043):737–738. doi:10.1038/435737a

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Weed DL (1998) Preventing scientific misconduct. Am J Public Health 88(1):125–129

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Wilmshurst P (1997) The code of silence. Lancet 349(9051):567–569

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Sarwar U, Nicolaou M (2012) Fraud and deceit in medical research. J Res Med Sci 17(11):1077–1081

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Steneck NH (2006) Fostering integrity in research: definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Sci Eng Ethics 12(1):53–74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Claxton LD (2005) Scientific authorship: part 1. A window into scientific fraud? Mutat Res 589(1):17–30

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Hone J (1993) Combating fraud and misconduct in medical research. Scrip Mag 14(March):14–15

    Google Scholar 

  36. Reynolds SM (2004) ORI findings of scientific misconduct in clinical trials and publicly funded research, 1992–2002. Clin Trials 1(6):509–516. doi:10.1191/1740774504cn048oa

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Weiss RB, Vogelzang NJ, Peterson BA et al (1993) A successful system of scientific data audits for clinical trials. A report from the Cancer and Leukemia Group B. J Am Med Assoc 270(4):459–464

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Hamilton D (1992) In the trenches, doubts about scientific integrity. Science 255(5052):1636. doi:10.1126/science.11642983

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Ranstam J, Buyse M, George SL et al (2000) Fraud in medical research: an international survey of biostatisticians. Control Clin Trials 21(5):415–427. doi:10.1016/s0197-2456(00)00069-6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Kalichman MW, Friedman PJ (1992) A pilot study of biomedical trainees’ perceptions concerning research ethics. Acad Med 67(11):769–775

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Swazey JP, Anderson MS, Lewis KS (1993) Ethical problems in academic research. Am Sci 81:542–553

    Google Scholar 

  42. Titus SL, Wells JA, Rhoades LJ (2008) Repairing research integrity. Nature 453(7198):980–982

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. John LK, Loewenstein G, Prelec D (2012) Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychol Sci 23(5):524–532. doi:10.1177/0956797611430953

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Martinson BC, Crain AL, Anderson MS et al (2009) Institutions’ expectations for researchers’ self-funding, federal grant holding, and private industry involvement: manifold drivers of self-Interest and researcher behavior. Acad Med 84(11):1491–1499

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Koshland DE (1987) Fraud in science. Science 235:141–142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Blair G, Imai K, Zhou Y-Y (2015) Design and analysis of the randomized response technique (in press). J Am Stat Assoc

  47. Warner SL (1965) Randomized response: a survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. J Am Stat Assoc 60(309):63–69

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. List JA, Bailey CD, Euzent PJ et al (2001) Academic economists behaving badly? A survey on three areas of unethical behavior. Econ Inq 39(1):162–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Fanelli D (2009) How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One 4(5):e5738. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Smith R (2006) Research misconduct: the poisoning of the well. J R Soc Med 99(5):232–237. doi:10.1258/jrsm.99.5.232

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Sovacool BK (2008) Exploring scientific misconduct: isolated individuals, impure institutions, or an inevitable idiom of modern science? Bioeth Inq 5(4):271–282. doi:10.1007/s11673-008-9113-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Davis MS, Riske-Morris M, Diaz SR (2007) Causal factors implicated in research misconduct: evidence from ORI case files. Sci Eng Ethics 13(4):395–414. doi:10.1007/s11948-007-9045-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Chubin DE (1985) Misconduct in research: an issue of science policy and practice. Minerva 23(2):175–202. doi:10.1007/bf01099941

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. De Vries R, Anderson MS, Martinson BC (2006) Normal misbehavior: scientists talk about the ethics of research. J Empir Res Hum Res Eth 1(1):43–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Gaddis B, Helton-Fauth W, Scott G et al (2003) Development of two measures of climate for scientific organizations. Account Res 10(4):253–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Adams D, Pimple KD (2005) Research misconduct and crime lessons from criminal science on preventing misconduct and promoting integrity. Account Res 12(3):225–240

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Ariely D (2012) The honest truth about dishonesty. Harper Collins Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  58. Swazey JP, Scher SR (1982) Whistleblowing in biomedical research. Government Printing Office, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  59. Poisson R (1994) Fraud in breast-cancer trials [letter]. N Engl J Med 330(20):1460

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Buyse M, George SL, Evans S et al (1999) The role of biostatistics in the prevention, detection and treatment of fraud in clinical trials. Stat Med 18(24):3435–3451

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Knatterud GL, Rockhold FW, George SL et al (1998) Guidelines for quality assurance in multicenter trials: a position paper. Control Clin Trials 19(5):477–493. doi:10.1016/s0197-2456(98)00033-6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine, 2424 Erwin Road, Suite 1102, Room 11082, Durham, NC, 27705, USA

    Stephen L. George

Authors
  1. Stephen L. George
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen L. George.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

George, S.L. Research misconduct and data fraud in clinical trials: prevalence and causal factors. Int J Clin Oncol 21, 15–21 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-015-0887-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-015-0887-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation