# Presentation: 079406

## A Gentle, Collegial Alternative toWhistle-Blowing

- Joan E. Sieber
- California State University, East Bay
- Joan.sieber@csueastbay.edu

## You learn of someone doing “bad science” ...

## Acknowledgement

- This research is part of an ORI-funded project:
- “ A Collegial Defense
- Against Irresponsible Science”
- Collaborators:
- Gerald Koocher, Patricia Keith-Spiegel & Joan Sieber
- Simmons College

## A Two-Part Project

- An online survey of the experience (or not) with learning about “bad science.” subjects are approximately 15,000 recent recipients of NIH grants (using CRISP data base).
- Phone interviews of people who want to provide detailed cases of their experience.

## “Bad Science”

- ... anything likely to corrupt the scientific record.
- Innocent, naïve, absent-minded
- Guilty
- Shades of gray in between

## Why we did this...

- There must be something better than whistle-blowing.
- Surely people have invented clever ways to correct their colleagues.
- But this is confidential stuff.
- So we need an anonymous survey and interview approach.
- And a resulting manual – on line.

## Staying discovered

*“**Columbus wasn’t the first to discover America—but when he discovered it, it stayed discovered.”*
*Many have discovered effective collegial approaches to stopping bad science.  We plan to publish these approaches in an online handbook for others to learn from, to reduce their agony.*

## How Respondents Were Recruited

- Ads in science-ethics newsletters & journals
- “Snowball” sampling
- A request directed to those who completed our online survey.
- Different recruitment brought different kinds of responses.

## Instructions to Respondents

- Here are the kinds of things you should consider including as you describe the case:
-  What led up to this?
- What was your relationship to this person?
- What kinds of power did your or they have?
- Who else was involved?
- Was there someone who you knew would back you?
- What was your preparation process?
- What did you do? How did you approach the person?
- What did they do?  How did they respond?
- How did it turn out?
- ... but it is your story to tell, on your terms, not a structured interview.
- Don’t reveal real names or places.
- Interview is confidential. Your case will be thoroughly disguised and submitted to you for your approval before it is used in the manual.
- Told that researcher would wear a head set and touch type the case as it was related.
- Interview will take about 15 minutes unless you wish to talk longer, present more than one case, ...

## What Respondents Were Like:

- (No demographic data were gathered -- to help preserve privacy; institutional information not requested but often provided.)
- Most were the person wronged, not a bystander.
- Diverse in status: PhD students to very senior scientists (some retired).
- Very well prepared to describe their case.
- Very engaged in telling their case.  No problem establishing rapport.  All took more than 15 minutes.
- Still worrying about the case; eager to know if they could have handled it better.
- Obviously relieved to have the opportunity to describe their case, and to receive feedback that their situation is not unusual and that total vindication is rarely attained.
- Expressed gratitude for being interviewed.

## Who were the culprits?

- Unethical teachers of research methods (2)
- Student research misconduct: Students & paid research assistants (poorly trained, foreign, disorganized, ranging from very innocent to very guilty) (17)
- Poor methodology (8)
- PIs who fudge or require others to do so (4)
- Researchers who harm subjects (2)
- Authorship: plagiarizers; ignore refutation of conclusions; no credit to collaborator (14)
- Corrupt institutional leaders; cover up incompetence, embezzle (6)
- Reviewer or funder conflict of interest (3)
- Editorial role issues, e.g., reject fraudulent paper then published elsewhere (3)
- Misplaced morality (e.g., buying religious material with govt. funds; fudging results to advance a human rights cause) (5)
- IRB issues (3)

## What Were the Interviews Like?

- Ranged from 20 minutes to 1-1/2 hour.
- Most had been very well prepared to act on their case.
- Some had more than one case to present.
- Some reported very clever solutions: e.g. the case of faculty plagiarizing student paper.
- Some reported protracted negotiations and some semblance of a solution.
- Some did not realize that they achieved their objective because of lack of feedback.
- Some were still suffering from actions taken against them for speaking up.
- Some wanted to stay in touch and add any new information.

## Elements of Successful Strategies

- Consulted with others – peers, specialists, powerful people who can help.
- Spent the necessary time collaborating brainstorming, planning, gathering information.
- Collaborated on finding a solution.
- Was knowledgeable; appeal to widely held scientific values.  (Know what you are talking about.)
- Had more power relative to the person you seek to reform.
- Was not confrontational; subtle guilt induction can be very effective; let culprit save face.  Do not humiliate naïve persons whose bad science was unintentional.

## Who Succeeds?

- People who have all six qualities or strategies always seem to succeed.
- Low-power persons who have the other five qualities are very likely to succeed.

## What Causes Difficulty or Failure?

- Institutions shot through with COI, shady deals, financial malfeasance, covering up.
- Being a student confronting powerful and defensive faculty, or anyone facing a very powerful, defensive person.
- Being in a position where it is not one’s business to pursue the wrongdoing.
- Very excessive effort required, with little likelihood of success.

## Some “Failures”

- Leaving the organization because there is no way to work within it.  Too corrupt.
- Having a couple years’ work stolen and walking away from the situation.
- Being told to retire or be fired.
- Being treated as a tattle tale by one’s colleagues.
- Being abused by a faculty member who is “untouchable.”

## Observations

- Respondents worry that they could have done better and that they failed to reform the wrong-doer.  Often damage control is perhaps the best they can hope for.
- Some cases were from quite long ago but were still “unfinished business,” still very upsetting.  Resolution or perspective is sought.
- Most institutions are not prepared to handle cases sensitively or effectively.
- Typically, for legal reasons, institutions cannot tell the informant how the case was handled or resolved.
- Respondents expressed gratitude for the opportunity to discuss their case in objective terms.
- Respondents expressed a great interest in the manual that will be forthcoming from this project.

## Next Steps

- We have done 70 interviews; plan to double that.
- We have some success cases which we look forward to analyzing and communicating in the manual.
- We have some very troubling cases that we don’t yet know how to present.  Was there a better way to proceed? We will be seeking advice from experienced administrators who may have insights we don’t have.

## Would you....

- ... Like to be interviewed about a situation of scientific wrong doing in which you have been involved?
- ... Like to discuss with us some of the troubling cases and offer suggestions on better ways to handle them?
- ... Like to critique the first draft of our manual?