A temporary researcher at the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences was assigned to contribute to a project through fundamental research and laboratory tasks. In a meeting with the institute and an associated research group, the researcher presented one of his reports. The researcher admitted to having falsified research data when the participants reacted to unusual findings in the report. The matter was subsequently referred to the Research Ethics Committee at UiO (REC) for an assessment.
Two affiliated leaders provided in-person and written explanations to REC regarding the case. They explained, among other things, that the researcher had not adhered to the guidelines for storing research data or documenting laboratory work, he could not present raw data, and had admitted to fabricating the relevant findings multiple times. The REC also accessed the relevant laboratory journal.
The notified researcher was invited to give an in-person explanation to the REC but declined. However, he explained in writing to REC that the research report presented at the meeting was based on fabricated data, attributing it to perceived time pressure and cooperation problems with his leader.
The basis for the REC's assessment was that scientific misconduct according to The Norwegian Research Ethics Act depends on two conditions: whether there has indeed been a violation of recognized norms in research ethics, and whether the researcher can be blamed for this. There must be a clear preponderance of the evidence for this to be proven.
The possible violation concerned fabrication, defined in the preparatory works for The Norwegian Research Ethics Act as, among other things, "the construction of data" or presenting "fictional results in a research report." REC believed that such an act had taken place, emphasizing the researcher's admission, a summary from the meeting where the disputed report was presented, and the incomplete laboratory journal that the researcher kept.
Since the case concerned an unpublished research report, REC pointed out that scientific misconduct in the form of fabrication can occur at any stage of the research. This contrasts with misconduct in the form of plagiarism, which can only be determined when a document is completed and made available to others, cf. a statement from GRU (2015).
REC further noted that the researcher had admitted to falsifications and assumed that such an act encompassed an intent.
REC therefore concluded there was clear that parts of the relevant research report were based on fabricated data and that the researcher did this intentionally. Both conditions for scientific misconduct were met.
Additionally, REC did not find systemic failure, citing one leader's explanation that the researcher had been introduced to internal guidelines and relevant equipment. The unethical behaviour was instead due to the researcher’s unwillingness to follow known procedures.
Since the results were not published, the REC did not find it relevant to make recommendations for correction or retraction of the scientific work.
The REC's conclusion in the case was unanimous.
References
- The Norwegian Research Ethics Act (2017) §§ 6 and 8
- The Regulations of the Law to The Norwegian Research Ethics Act (2018) § 7 last paragraph
- The draft bill of The Norwegian Research Ethics Act (Prop. 158 L (2015-2016)) Chapter 5.2.2.3 and 5.2.2.4.
- The Norwegian National Committee for Research Ethics in Science and Technology (NENT): Guidelines for Research Ethics in Science and Technology (2015) Section 4
- National Commission for the Investigation of Research Misconduct (Granskingsutvalget - GRU): Statement September 8, 2015, in a case of possible scientific misconduct at NLA University College AS
The text has been translated and improved by UiO GPT.
More statements and summaries from the Research Ethics Committee at UiO