Presentation Title: “Conceptual Evolution of Research Misconduct: Overcoming the Integrity’s Irrelevance Through the Localization of Attribution”

Abstract:

Research misconduct is a serious concern for the scientific community, and research institutions and scientists need to proactively manage it. However, scientists found it difficult to comprehend the importance of research integrity when scientific scandals first attracted public attention. In 1981, the United States held its inaugural congressional hearings on scientific fraud, where scientists testified to what appeared to be the "irrelevance of research integrity." From scientists' perspective, the exposure to scientific scandals was seen as a natural consequence of the self-correcting mechanisms inherent in scientific inquiry. They believed that the scientific system functioned soundly and could identify and rectify errors, including fraudulent cases. By nature, scientific claims are disprovable, and the ability to disprove them makes scientific processes valuable. Self-correcting functions in science would ultimately rectify any mistakes. Consequently, distinguishing between honest errors and fraud seems challenging, and an emphasis on detecting and policing fraud alone appears to be pointless. Furthermore, the scientific community upheld a tradition of "pure relationships" based on the shared purpose of knowledge inquiry, where free inquiry was deemed the appropriate means for improving and acquiring knowledge. From this standpoint, research integrity, which actively polices research misconduct, was perceived as useless or potentially harmful. Two pertinent questions are as follows: why is the promotion of research integrity widely accepted today? What shifts in perspective or changes in assumptions have occurred? One possible answer is that contrary to initial assumptions, it has become evident that the 20th-century peer review system does not function in a quality assurance framework. This recognition has prompted efforts to enhance the credibility of peer review and performance evaluation systems by prioritizing transparency, replicability, and reproducibility. Nevertheless, regarding scientists’ earlier perspectives as mere overestimations of self-correcting functions or underestimations of the prevalence of misconduct would be a mistake. This recognition of the need for improved credibility emerged when research misconduct was identified as a target of administrative action, and research institutions and scientists were held accountable for promoting integrity. Reports, such as NASEM (1992), emphasized the soundness of the scientific system but also acknowledged the necessity for adaptation to societal conditions. In other words, overcoming the "irrelevance of research integrity" occurred prior to the self-correcting functions were assured to be deficient. This presentation focuses on the conceptual changes in inappropriate research practices from 1980 to 2000. During this period, the United States witnessed several debates over the definition of research misconduct and procedures for investigating allegations of misconduct. The terminology shifted from “scientific fraud” to “research misconduct”, with emerging subconcepts, such as professional misconduct, which were not unique to science, and questionable research practices . By analyzing the literature from this period, we examined the way the settlement of the main controversial issues in the procedure influenced the emergence of these subconcepts. Preliminary findings suggest that the practice of investigating allegations transformed the subject of research misconduct into a hybrid of science and law, prompting efforts to salvage "what is unique to science." In doing so, the attribution of integrity has been localized to "scientific records" and "the research process" rather than individual scientists. These conceptual changes played a vital role in overcoming the "irrelevance of research integrity."