Questionable, Objectionable or Criminal? Public Opinion on Data Fraud and Selective Reporting in Science
- 561 Downloads
Data fraud and selective reporting both present serious threats to the credibility of science. However, there remains considerable disagreement among scientists about how best to sanction data fraud, and about the ethicality of selective reporting. The public is arguably the largest stakeholder in the reproducibility of science; research is primarily paid for with public funds, and flawed science threatens the public’s welfare. Members of the public are able to make meaningful judgments about the morality of different behaviors using moral intuitions. Legal scholars emphasize that to maintain legitimacy, social control policies must be developed with some consideration given to the public’s moral intuitions. Although there is a large literature on popular attitudes toward science, there is no existing evidence about public opinion on data fraud or selective reporting. We conducted two studies—a survey experiment with a nationwide convenience sample (N = 821), and a follow-up survey with a representative sample of US adults (N = 964)—to explore community members’ judgments about the morality of data fraud and selective reporting in science. The findings show that community members make a moral distinction between data fraud and selective reporting, but overwhelmingly judge both behaviors to be immoral and deserving of punishment. Community members believe that scientists who commit data fraud or selective reporting should be fired and banned from receiving funding. For data fraud, most Americans support criminal penalties. Results from an ordered logistic regression analysis reveal few demographic and no significant partisan differences in punitiveness toward data fraud.
KeywordsResearch misconduct Fabrication and falsification Questionable research practices Researcher degrees of freedom Publication bias False positives
- American Association for Public Opinion Research. (2016). Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys. Ann Arbor, MI: American Association for Public Opinion Research.Google Scholar
- Baumeister, R. (2014). Personal quote on the Replicaiton Index Blog. Roy Baumeister’s R-Index. https://replicationindex.wordpress.com/2014/12/01/roy-baumeisters-r-index/.
- Gammon, E., & Franzini, L. (2013). Research misconduct oversight: Defining case costs. Journal of Health Care Finance, 40, 75–99.Google Scholar
- Hadjiargyrou, M. (2015). Scientific misconduct: How best to punish those who consciously violate our profession’s integrity? Journal of Information Ethics, 24, 23–30.Google Scholar
- Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
- Haidt, J., & Kesebir, S. (2010). Morality. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 797–832). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Judson, H. F. (2004). The great betrayal: Fraud in science. Orlando, FL: Harcourt.Google Scholar
- Nadler, J. (2005). Flouting the law. Texas Law Review, 83, 1399–1441. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=692223.
- O’Leary, P. (2015). Policing research misconduct. Albany Law Journal of Science & Technology, 25, 39–93.Google Scholar
- Pew Research Center. (2013, July 11). Public esteem for military still high. http://www.pewforum.org/2013/07/11/public-esteem-for-military-still-high/.
- Pew Research Center. (2015, January 29). Public and scientists’ view on science and society. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/.
- Robinson, P. H. (2012). Intuitions of justice and the utility of desert. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Robinson, P. H., Goodwin, G. P., & Reisig, M. D. (2010). The disutility of injustice. New York University Law Review, 85, 1940–2033. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1470905.
- Silver, J. R., & Silver, E. (2017). Why Are Conservatives More Punitive Than Liberals? A Moral Foundations Approach. Law and Human Behavior.Google Scholar
- Smith, R. (2013). Should scientific fraud be a criminal offense? http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2013/12/09/richard-smith-should-scientific-fraud-be-a-criminal-offence/.