A Gentle, Collegial Alternative to Whistle-Blowing

1. A Gentle, Collegial Alternative toWhistle-Blowing Joan E. Sieber California State University, East Bay Joan.sieber@csueastbay.edu

2. You learn of someone doing “bad science” …

3. Acknowledgement This research is part of an ORI-funded project: “ A Collegial Defense Against Irresponsible Science” Collaborators: Gerald Koocher, Patricia Keith-Spiegel & Joan Sieber Simmons College

4. A Two-Part Project • An online survey of the experience (or not) with learning about “bad science.” subjects are approximately 15,000 recent recipients of NIH grants (using CRISP data base). • Phone interviews of people who want to provide detailed cases of their experience.

5. “Bad Science” … anything likely to corrupt the scientific record. • Innocent, naïve, absent-minded • Guilty • Shades of gray in between

6. Why we did this… • There must be something better than whistle-blowing. • Surely people have invented clever ways to correct their colleagues. • But this is confidential stuff. • So we need an anonymous survey and interview approach. • And a resulting manual – on line.

7. Staying discovered • “Columbus wasn’t the first to discover America—but when he discovered it, it stayed discovered.” • Many have discovered effective collegial approaches to stopping bad science. We plan to publish these approaches in an online handbook for others to learn from, to reduce their agony.

8. How Respondents Were Recruited • Ads in science-ethics newsletters & journals • “Snowball” sampling • A request directed to those who completed our online survey. Different recruitment brought different kinds of responses.

9. Instructions to Respondents Here are the kinds of things you should consider including as you describe the case: • What led up to this? • What was your relationship to this person? • What kinds of power did your or they have? • Who else was involved? • Was there someone who you knew would back you? • What was your preparation process? • What did you do? How did you approach the person? • What did they do? How did they respond? • How did it turn out? … but it is your story to tell, on your terms, not a structured interview. • Don’t reveal real names or places. • Interview is confidential. Your case will be thoroughly disguised and submitted to you for your approval before it is used in the manual. • Told that researcher would wear a head set and touch type the case as it was related. • Interview will take about 15 minutes unless you wish to talk longer, present more than one case, …

10. What Respondents Were Like: • (No demographic data were gathered -- to help preserve privacy; institutional information not requested but often provided.) • Most were the person wronged, not a bystander. • Diverse in status: PhD students to very senior scientists (some retired). • Very well prepared to describe their case. • Very engaged in telling their case. No problem establishing rapport. All took more than 15 minutes. • Still worrying about the case; eager to know if they could have handled it better. • Obviously relieved to have the opportunity to describe their case, and to receive feedback that their situation is not unusual and that total vindication is rarely attained. • Expressed gratitude for being interviewed.

11. Who were the culprits? • Unethical teachers of research methods (2) • Student research misconduct: Students & paid research assistants (poorly trained, foreign, disorganized, ranging from very innocent to very guilty) (17) • Poor methodology (8) • PIs who fudge or require others to do so (4) • Researchers who harm subjects (2) • Authorship: plagiarizers; ignore refutation of conclusions; no credit to collaborator (14) • Corrupt institutional leaders; cover up incompetence, embezzle (6) • Reviewer or funder conflict of interest (3) • Editorial role issues, e.g., reject fraudulent paper then published elsewhere (3) • Misplaced morality (e.g., buying religious material with govt. funds; fudging results to advance a human rights cause) (5) • IRB issues (3)

12. What Were the Interviews Like? • Ranged from 20 minutes to 1-1/2 hour. • Most had been very well prepared to act on their case. • Some had more than one case to present. • Some reported very clever solutions: e.g. the case of faculty plagiarizing student paper. • Some reported protracted negotiations and some semblance of a solution. • Some did not realize that they achieved their objective because of lack of feedback. • Some were still suffering from actions taken against them for speaking up. • Some wanted to stay in touch and add any new information.

13. Elements of Successful Strategies • Consulted with others – peers, specialists, powerful people who can help. • Spent the necessary time collaborating brainstorming, planning, gathering information. • Collaborated on finding a solution. • Was knowledgeable; appeal to widely held scientific values. (Know what you are talking about.) • Had more power relative to the person you seek to reform. • Was not confrontational; subtle guilt induction can be very effective; let culprit save face. Do not humiliate naïve persons whose bad science was unintentional.

14. Who Succeeds? • People who have all six qualities or strategies always seem to succeed. • Low-power persons who have the other five qualities are very likely to succeed.

15. What Causes Difficulty or Failure? • Institutions shot through with COI, shady deals, financial malfeasance, covering up. • Being a student confronting powerful and defensive faculty, or anyone facing a very powerful, defensive person. • Being in a position where it is not one’s business to pursue the wrongdoing. • Very excessive effort required, with little likelihood of success.

16. Some “Failures” • Leaving the organization because there is no way to work within it. Too corrupt. • Having a couple years’ work stolen and walking away from the situation. • Being told to retire or be fired. • Being treated as a tattle tale by one’s colleagues. • Being abused by a faculty member who is “untouchable.”

17. Observations • Respondents worry that they could have done better and that they failed to reform the wrong-doer. Often damage control is perhaps the best they can hope for. • Some cases were from quite long ago but were still “unfinished business,” still very upsetting. Resolution or perspective is sought. • Most institutions are not prepared to handle cases sensitively or effectively. • Typically, for legal reasons, institutions cannot tell the informant how the case was handled or resolved. • Respondents expressed gratitude for the opportunity to discuss their case in objective terms. • Respondents expressed a great interest in the manual that will be forthcoming from this project.

18. Next Steps • We have done 70 interviews; plan to double that. • We have some success cases which we look forward to analyzing and communicating in the manual. • We have some very troubling cases that we don’t yet know how to present. Was there a better way to proceed? We will be seeking advice from experienced administrators who may have insights we don’t have.

19. Would you…. • … Like to be interviewed about a situation of scientific wrong doing in which you have been involved? • … Like to discuss with us some of the troubling cases and offer suggestions on better ways to handle them? • … Like to critique the first draft of our manual?