'Scientists falsify data to get research published and whistleblowers are bullied into keeping quiet,' claim their own colleagues



More than one in ten scientists and doctors claim to have witnessed colleagues deliberately fabricating data in order to get their research published, a new poll has revealed.

The survey of almost 2,800 experts in Britain also found six per cent knew of possible research misconduct at their own institution that has not been properly investigated.

The poll for the hugely-respected British Medical Journal (BMJ) is being presented at a meeting aimed at tackling research misconduct in the UK.

Dangerous: A poll for the BMJ suggests 13 per cent of doctors and scientists know of colleagues who have falsified data to get their research published

It is being hosted by the BMJ and the Committee on Publication Ethics (Cope).

Dr Fiona Godlee, BMJ editor in chief, said: 'While our survey can't provide a true estimate of how much research misconduct there is in the UK, it does show that there is a substantial number of cases and that UK institutions are failing to investigate adequately, if at all.

'The BMJ has been told of junior academics being advised to keep concerns to themselves to protect their careers, being bullied into not publishing their findings, or having their contracts terminated when they spoke out.'

'Scientists and doctors who deliberately hide results have breached their ethical duty to trial participants' BMJ's clinical epidemiology editor Dr Elizabeth Lode

Cope chair Dr Elizabeth Wager added: 'This survey chimes with our experience where we see many cases of institutions not co-operating with journals and failing to investigate research misconduct properly.'

Earlier this month, health experts writing in the BMJ online warned that excluding data from clinical trials could endanger patients.

In an editorial, Dr Richard Lehman from Oxford University and the journal’s clinical epidemiology editor Dr Elizabeth Loder called for an end to the 'culture of haphazard publication and incomplete data disclosure'.

They called for more robust regulation and full access to the raw trial data, not just what ends up being published.