We need to guard against the sociopaths, warns Philip Campbell

My answer to this question is: ‘who knows?’

It’s an unhelpful but honest answer: little has been systematically documented about the motivations of science fraudsters. But blaming the pressure to publish for fraud doesn’t get you very far.

Publication is by far the most significant manifestation of scientific achievement, and the scientific impact of publications is the dominant measure of a researcher’s value. The quality of the science ultimately counts for more than quantity.

However, it is an unhappy fact that in science you either come first or you may gain nothing from perhaps years of work. This pressure can be mitigated by the knowledge that work done more thoroughly has its own value - there is a place for people who aren’t first but who nevertheless have deeper or broader tales to tell. But the medals and promotions tend to go to people who are first to report a clear discovery.

Misconduct

Current pressures are bound to increase the likelihood of misconduct. This is especially so with misconduct that is relatively easy to implement, such as the manipulation of images to make a result just that little bit more convincing, or using your senior position to put your name onto a paper even when you made a negligible contribution, or abusing your trusted position as a referee to steal an idea and quickly implement and publish it yourself.

Equally to be deplored are people who fabricate or plagiarize scientific results simply to cut corners. They believe they know the right answer, they are under one pressure or another to complete an experiment, and they act on a temptation to get there fast, believing that their actions will not be discovered.

Sociopaths in science

There are sociopaths in science as in other walks of life. When one looks at cases of fraud on a grand scale, involving the duplication or fabrication of data in papers that is almost certain to be detected ultimately, carried out by someone of high intelligence (the physicist Jan-Hendrik Schoen comes to mind), it is hard to avoid the conclusion that one is witnessing a pathological personality at work.

Instead of blaming pressures on researchers, it is more important simply to recognize that there are unethical scientists. Institutions, funding agencies and journals need to appreciate the damage that such people can do and enforce laboratory and refereeing practices that minimize their likelihood of success. After all, like it or loath it, the push to publish is here to stay.

Dr Philip Campbell is Editor-in-Chief, Nature