Disclaimer: this article is still in progress.
According to research, 32% of PhD students are at risk of developing a psychiatric condition (Levecque et al., 2017). Specific reports about depression and anxiety among PhD and master's students are "six times higher than those in the general public" (Nature, 2018). The pressure to perform and to have a career is growing, which also increases the temptation to commit misconduct or other unethical practices due to the 'quick fix' phenomenon. Scientific or research misconduct means, for example, falsification, fabrication and plagiarism (Bauchner et al., 2018; Martyn, 2003, pp. 243-244). This could lead to undermining "integrity, credibility, and objectivity in genuine research" and "risks undermining trust, among researchers and the general public" (Yadav, 2023). We don't live in times anymore where the mainstream can have a career in science and academia that is exclusively focused on long-term operating, aiming for the highest quality and self-evident integrity (Schuyt, 2019).
Unfortunately, making money and having a career have become the highest priorities for companies and many researchers, which usually result in doing everything to get there. Whether it is manipulating data or having conflicts of interest. Another example is the problematic system of metrics, such as the h-index, that provide (especially quantitative) measurements of productivity and citation impact (Conroy, 2020). The whole concept of academia and science seems to have become prestigious, short-term focused and relevant for high-impact publication. Therefore, it is less focused on doing honest, long-term based, reproducible, creative research that is about investigating and testing things and not about having the right results that are mainly in favour of companies, a career or money. This also causes high pressure on the psychological and emotional state of students, teachers and scientists. Another category is the type of people involved in this system who just want to 'get away with it easily' and seem to aim for quick achievements which have usually a commercial, sloppy and fraudulent (or at least questionable) character. Just look at the number of retractions of papers, whether or not due to misconduct (Van Noorden, 2023). Some say such characteristics are even almost inevitable. The qualitative, sincere research seems to appeal to a minority of academics and scientists. Fortunately, the system is still ethical enough to acknowledge that, and the minority of research is still prioritised and used more often by actual experts. We must not become cynical and think that nothing good comes out of research anymore, but surely, there exist some real problems with integrity, also in domains such as journalism. So how strong is the temptation to manipulate data? To fabricate a few numbers here and there? Will anyone notice? What about using references that are inappropriate to the context, and thus meaning, in which they are used? Or using artificial intelligence (AI) without referencing? It is also an option to steal someone's idea and publish it – under the right circumstances – before that person is able to. All these things happen, and they do not occur very rarely. One might think that it only happens in countries, universities or laboratories of low reputation, for example, in less developed countries. Unfortunately, this is not the case. It is certainly a global issue, even though the problem is not as big in countries where science is at a high level.
It is appropriate to hypothesise that, next to average reasons to operate unethically (whether or not out of ordinary unethical behaviour), certain negative psychological conditions, which could be recognised as mental disorders as an outcome of the feeling of academic failure or the pressure of prestige, generate an urge to look for ways to achieve success outside the ethical norms. It is also a possibility that unethical behaviour due to mental disorders, or only to a certain extent, is part of ordinary unethical behaviour, which means that the main reason is an "opportunity to cheat" whilst caring about and valuing morality (Gino, 2015, pp. 107-111). This mild paradox is very common in human psychology. After all, humans are filled with contrary intuitions in captivity of our (whether or not existing) selfish genes that expose very circumstantial and hence contextual constituting ambivalent behaviour towards elements in daily life to be ethically assesed. Nevertheless, they are not merely contrary intuitions consisting of conditioned ignorance, they are even conscious to various extents, depending on individual cases as well. Being sincere is a very complex psychological phenomenon, since humans are conditioned to use it very tactically and sophisticatedly in different situations in which it is (a) necessary to achieve certain goals and (b) depending on social pressure of acceptance. Whereas in other situations, the tactic is not to be sincere, or only partly. Moreover, there are plenty of people and cases where sincerity is a natural intuitive characteristic, presumably functioning primarily unconsciously.
Science, journalism and academia are three of society's most important domains, that – without exaggeration – could even save lives and maintain a civilised, modern world. After all, policymakers within governments are making policies on the basis of what experts advise them, and this has consequences for health, economics, technology, education, and thus must be treated well. In addition, it provides society knowledge, trust and critical thinking which benefits the democratic, peaceful society we live in. One of the solutions is to inspire and teach researchers about scientific integrity (Strazzabosco, 2023). Governments should also be aware of the required strictness of research ethics and sincere practices and systems within academia, journalism and science to create something reliable. Reliability is one of the key factors when it comes to modern, decent society, without the issues of greed and corruption, or at least the minimisation of it. And this greed and corruption apply even to the tiniest societal components; it is not mainly about big companies or dictators. Of course, some form of selfish financial and careerwise benefits will always remain to exist and is perhaps even necessary in every society on earth. A utopia will never be realised and is possibly not even preferable. Nevertheless, to minimise rather unethical functioning, while maintaining economic and reputational standards, is always a good idea. The big challenge is, how do we deal with the worldwide businesses, economic and geographic expansion, and political and ideological interests, which all affect academia, health and science as well? In addition, the concept of what a successful researcher should be is something to discuss because it needs to change (Nicholls et al., 2022). After all, one of the core problems is the urge to aim for success in a way that causes corrupt behaviour, based on general ideas about what success is. As opposed to those general ideas, success is not about having the most publications, having the most citations, or aiming for the highest academic position. It is not about making money either. Establishing "optimal institutional academic reward systems for researchers, which should not be solely based on the impact factor of the publication" is a necessity as one of the solutions that needs emphasization (The Lancet, 2019). Furthermore, to raise attention for integrity improvements, not only education is the answer. Globally, national science institutions, scientific leaders and governments should take the public's trust in science more seriously than they currently do (The Lancet, 2019).
References
Bauchner, H., Fontanarosa, P.B., Flanagin, A., & Thornton, J. (2018). Scientific Misconduct and Medical Journals. JAMA, 320(19), 1985-1987.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.14350
Conroy, G. (March 24, 2020). What's wrong with the h-index, according to its inventor. Nature.
https://www.nature.com/nature-index/news/whats-wrong-with-the-h-index-according-to-its-inventor
Gino, F. (2015). Understanding Ordinary Unethical Behavior: Why People Who Value Morality Act Immorally. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 3, 107–111.
https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=49080#:~:text=As%20regularly%20highlighted%20by%20the%20media%2C%20extreme%20cases,unethically%20when%20faced%20with%20an%20opportunity%20to%20cheat.
Levecque, K., Anseel, F., De Beuckelaer, A., Van der Heyden, J., Gisle, L. (2017). Work organization and mental health problems in PhD students. Research Policy, 46(4), 868-879.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.02.008
Martyn, C. (2003). Fabrication, falsification and plagiarism. QJM: An International Journal of Medicine, 96(4), 243–244.
https://doi.org/10.1093/qjmed/hcg036
Nature (2018). More than one-third of graduate students report being depressed. Nature, 555(691).
https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-03803-3
Nicholls, H., Nicholls, M., Tekin, S., Lamb, D., & Billings, J. (2022). The impact of working in academia on researchers’ mental health and well-being: A systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis. PLoS ONE, 17(5), e0268890.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268890
Schuyt, K. (2019). Scientific Integrity : the rules of academic research. Leiden University Press (LUP)
https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/handle/1887/79152
Strazzabosco, M. (2023). It could happen in your backyard. Hepatology.
https://doi.org/10.1097/HEP.0000000000000596
The Lancet (2019). Research integrity: time for global action. The Lancet, 394(10213), 1965.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32933-2
Van Noorden, R. (2023). More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 — a new record. Nature, 624, 479-481.
https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03974-8
Yadav, S.K. (2023). Scientific Misconduct. In: Research and Publication Ethics. Springer, Cham.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26971-4_5
Add comment
Comments