Volume 21, No. 1, Fall 1999
The article by Drs. Hogan and Patterson makes several important and valid points. Of particular interest is their analysis of the financial incentives of the university charged with conducting initial inquiries (at least) into alleged misconduct. I agree with Hogan and Patterson that the handling of specific cases (particularly “flagship” cases with high visibility and/or financial impact) can be influenced by the university’s own selfish interests, at least as perceived by its administrators. Unfortunately, when it comes to research misconduct, unbiased arbiters are few and far between. Even a higher authority like NIH’s Office of Research Integrity has financial motives, especially when trying to justify its existence and its budget to Congress and the public.
In my view, the Hogan and Patterson article takes an overly rational view of the motivations of research misconduct, as though both the dishonest researcher and whistleblower engage in an ethical and financial cost-benefit analysis before assuming their respective roles. I suspect that psychological, perhaps even subconscious, motivation is a much greater factor. The dishonest scientist may be motivated by ego and a desire for peer admiration more than by prospects of financial reward. The initial motivation for the accuser often derives from a personal dislike of, or disagreement with, the accused. Satisfaction, if any, for some whistleblowers may come more from the feeling of righteous indignation than a perceived “moral benefit”. No matter how rational the initial motivations, an emotional, potentially explosive, interchange between accuser and accused is virtually certain once a formal allegation is made. As with harassment accusations, a general rule of thumb is that, once outside counsel is obtained, any outcome minimally satisfactory to both accused and accuser becomes highly unlikely. As suggested by Hogan and Patterson, the existing “inquisitional” model of resolving misconduct within the university can be problematic, especially in high impact cases. Rather, it is designed primarily to handle allegations quickly and with maximum confidentiality. That is, it seeks to keep the “silent majority” of unsubstantiated accusations from creating long term damage to both the accused and accuser. This is no small virtue, especially as there may never be a completely unbiased system to fairly, but efficiently, address the flagship cases of research misconduct.
Jerry Dodgson is Professor & Chairperson
in the Department of Microbiology, MSU