While scientists appear to be engaging far more often in "mundane" kinds of scientific wrongdoing than plagiarism or fabricated research, any type of "misbehavior" threatens the credibility of the scientific process, say research experts.

"We're not saying that the house is on fire," Chris Pascal, director of the federal Office of Research Integrity, told about 100 university officials last week at the Research Conference on Promoting a Productive and Responsible Research Environment in Sacramento. "But we are saying a problem exists and there is room for improvement."

Pascal, whose office monitors research for the Department of Health and Human Services, noted that "changing the culture" at universities is one way to safeguard scientific integrity in an ever-expanding regulatory environment of grant funding. It would help, he said, to encourage more effective campus policies on data handling, authorship and research compliance.

He added, "We need to get the principal investigators at the lab level implementing these measures and then orientating new people to follow these guidelines."

The timing could not have been better for the conference, which was jointly sponsored by UC Davis and the Office of Research Integrity and included research employees from institutions across the country. Research misconduct has been a hot topic in the news lately.

'Flawed data'

On June 9, the journal Nature published a bombshell of an article detailing how widespread research misconduct is today. The report found that one-third of scientists surveyed said that within the previous three years, they had engaged in at least one practice that would probably get them into trouble, the report said.

Examples included circumventing minor aspects of rules for doing research on people and overlooking a colleague's use of flawed data or questionable interpretation of data.

One area of concern is inadequate record keeping — the survey noted that 27 percent of scientists admitted engaging in this — and changing the design or results of the study — 15 percent surveyed acknowledged this.

On the latter finding, Malinda Orlin, vice president of academic affairs at the University of Maryland in Baltimore, said, "I think it's very troubling that this has such a high response rate."

Still, few scientists fabricate results from scratch or flatly plagiarize the work of others, according to the report, which was produced by the Health Partners Research Foundation in Minneapolis.

The survey included results from 3,247 scientists based in the United States who had received funding from the National Institutes of Health.

Pascal said the extent of the problem is hard to define because, he believes, incidents of scientific misconduct are underreported. The Office of Research Integrity has confirmed about 160 cases of fraud since 1992.

Some questioned how the study was devised and then reported in the media.

"I don't think we've been complacent, but have we been 100 percent effective? No, we haven't," said Mark Frankel, director of the Scientific Freedom, Responsibility and Law Program at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "The headlines are just amazing, though. You'd think we were all rogue scientists, but the data doesn't show this."

He added that he wondered how the study's questions were framed.

'Principled campus'

Lynne Chronister, associate vice chancellor for research at UC Davis, agreed that research compliance is often a matter of culture. Describing UC Davis as an "extremely principled campus," she said that leadership has embraced research compliance as a major issue the past few years.

"Scientific integrity is our goal, and we use research compliance as the means to that goal," she said. "Integrity means following the rules and standards."

Chronister said that "good science" depends on the proper methodology, design, supervision, data handling, statistical analyses, reporting and peer review.

Intentional misconduct is the worst-case scenario, she said. To make the point, Chronister cited recent headline-grabbing cases of research gone awry.

Earlier this year, a former tenured professor of medicine at the University of Vermont College of Medicine was accused of using false and fabricated research data to obtain $2.9 million in research funding from the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The researcher pled guilty to one count of making a material false statement in connection with preparing, signing and submitting a $542,000 grant application to NIH.

The researcher, Eric Poehlman, agreed to pay $180,000 to settle a civil complaint relating to numerous false grant applications filed while at the University of Vermont. He also agreed to be barred for life from seeking or receiving any federal funding.

Some cases are less intentional but equally disastrous. In 2003, researchers at Johns Hopkins University mixed up the labeling of methamphetamines in an animal test. The test could not be replicated, and soon the incident generated widespread negative publicity. Eventually it was discovered that the shipping company hired by the researchers actually made the mistake.

"Sometimes it's hard to see the difference between bad practices and intentional misconduct," Chronister said. "But principal investigators are held accountable for all aspects of the research project."

Credibility is the key issue, she said, explaining that the public places a great deal of trust in the research produced at a university.

Another speaker at the conference, Geoffrey Grant, the deputy director for management, operations and policy at the National Science Foundation, encouraged universities to strike the "right tone" in talking with faculty about research compliance.

"Ask yourself, 'How do we talk about this in our organization?'" said Grant, a former chief research administrator at Stanford University. "We have to appeal to our own particular culture. So you look for the words that work in your institution."

When this is settled upon, Grant said, it helps to have communication from the top. For example, a university president or provost can write a letter to faculty explaining just how sacred the concept of research compliance is to the institution. Another idea is to convene a one-time meeting of key faculty and administrators to discuss the salient issues.

In other business, the attendees heard presentations on how science has changed a lot in terms of its competitiveness, the level of funding and the commercial pressures on scientists. One large issue is how to deal with conflict-of-interest problems and the influence of industry upon research institutions now facing more rules and mandates than ever.

"The number of regulations has grown enormously in recent years," said Grant, "and they've become more complex, sophisticated and systemic."