Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition

Abstract

Over the last 50 years, we argue that incentives for academic scientists have become increasingly perverse in terms of competition for research funding, development of quantitative metrics to measure performance, and a changing business model for higher education itself. Furthermore, decreased discretionary funding at the federal and state level is creating a hypercompetitive environment between government agencies (e.g., EPA, NIH, CDC), for scientists in these agencies, and for academics seeking funding from all sources—the combination of perverse incentives and decreased funding increases pressures that can lead to unethical behavior. If a critical mass of scientists become untrustworthy, a tipping point is possible in which the scientific enterprise itself becomes inherently corrupt and public trust is lost, risking a new dark age with devastating consequences to humanity. Academia and federal agencies should better support science as a public good, and incentivize altruistic and ethical outcomes, while de-emphasizing output.

Introducing the dilemma of societal alignment for inclusive and responsible research and innovation

“…Through to the present, there has been further expansion in efforts to exploit public research to generate societal benefits (Benneworth 2015). This has sparked a growing interest in understanding how to steer and guide universities and academics to realise the public value of their research (Edwards and Roy 2017).…”

Machine-actionable data management plans (maDMPs)

“…This is a fundamental, high-priority use case for maDMPs although stakeholders were careful to point out that a narrow focus on compliance monitoring and enforcement risks increasing frustration levels among researchers. A thoughtful approach to compliance should therefore consider incentives and rewards, e.g., with recognition for tenure and promotion, as well as potential side effects of introducing measures in this space (Edwards and Roy 2017).…”

Integrity in Scientific Research

“…In a recent publication, Edwards and Roy 3 argue that hypercompetition for research funds and for financial and/or academic rewards has created an environment that is conducive to the cementing of scientific progress and to the rise of unethical actions. 3 The quantitative metric of scientific publications is dominant in the academic world. It is the basis for workers to be hired in universities, for job promotions, awards and for obtaining financial incentives.…”

“…It is the basis for workers to be hired in universities, for job promotions, awards and for obtaining financial incentives. 3 The direct consequence of this environment is the increase of scientific misconduct which, according to the National Science Foundation, can be classified as follows: (1) fabrication, which is making up results in research; (2) falsification, defined as manipulating research materials, equipment or procedures, or changing or omitting data so that the research does not accurately represent the actual findings; and (3) plagiarism, which is the appropriation of someone else's ideas, processes, results, or words, without giving proper credit. 4 These unethical conducts led to 291 research papers funded by the National Institute of Health (NIH) between 1992 and 2012 to be precluded from publication, at a cost of US$ 58 million, not to mention the damage resulting from researchers and health professionals unduly using data.…”

“…4 These unethical conducts led to 291 research papers funded by the National Institute of Health (NIH) between 1992 and 2012 to be precluded from publication, at a cost of US$ 58 million, not to mention the damage resulting from researchers and health professionals unduly using data. 3 Fanelli 5 has shown, in a meta-analysis, that 2% of the scientists who have been heard acknowledged that they have fabricated, falsified or modified data/results on at least one occasion; while 14% of them claim to know of data falsification in their colleagues' research studies. 5 Lins and Carvalho 6 published an analysis of fraud cases in Brazil, listing episodes of plagiarism, falsification and fabrication of results, and point out to the need for further discussion on the subject.…”