Climate for Scientific Misconduct in China

China’s path toward becoming an innovation-oriented nation by 2020, as outlined in the nation’s Medium and Long-Term Plan for the Development of Science and Technology (2006−2020), will be significantly derailed if the nation does not make serious effort to eradicate misconduct in science.

My worry that the international scientific community may heighten its attention to the scientific misconduct in China has unfortunately turned out to be true.  Recently, Lancet and Nature, two leading international science journals, published editorials commenting on a case in which scientists in China’s Jinggangshan University were caught fabricating some 70 papers submitted to Acta Crystallographica Section E, and urging that China take action.

Misconduct in science is widespread as the case indicates, and is likely more serious than any observer of Chinese science could image.  According to widely circulated and conservative estimates, some one-third of the Chinese researchers have engaged in some sort of problematic practice.

Sociologically, individual’s disordered emotions and mentality, conflicts between ethical standards of conduct and a desire to attain status, and alienation from the social organization are thought to cause ambivalent behavior.  These can explain fraudulent behavior of scientists as well.

But on top of these standard explanations, the rising scientific misconduct in China also can be attributed to the pursuit of promotion and other material rewards, the lack of autonomy in the research community, and societal influences.

In China, academic credentials are associated with considerable economic benefit and sometimes political opportunities.  For instance, an elite membership in the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Chinese Academy of Engineering is a stepping-stone for controlling resources far greater than their counterparts elsewhere holding such membership, and to accessing material privileges equivalent to a vice governor in China.  With so much linkage between scientific results and a higher professional title, no wonder some scientists have risked being caught for fraud.

The campaign for more submissions to international publications, especially in journals included in the Science Citation Index (SCI), a bibliometric database compiled by the Thomson Reuters, has an unintended consequence – institutions of learning have placed more emphasis on quantity, and assessed, promoted, and rewarded their scientists accordingly.  When a scientist has difficulty fulfilling the required quantity for the position legitimately, he or she is likely to divide the research into “the least publishable unit,” or even take a detour.

Institutional expectations for Chinese scientists have mounted as well, especially when the government has in recent years increased its investment in research and development in a very substantial way.  The pressure for “visible” outcomes – for example, a Nobel Prize in science in twenty years – has further fuels the growing misconduct.

The institutional watchdog responsible for exposing, investigating, and punishing deviance cases exits on paper only, largely because of the lack of the autonomy in the scientific community.  And it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to sanction high-profile scientists, because of the interference from both the persons who commit the fraud and the political leadership who make them preeminent in the first place.  Thus, those being punished are most likely small “flies,” while the big “tigers” are usually untouched, which has terrifying and lasting consequences. 

Finally, China’s research community has adapted to an environment in which the influence of commercialism has been powerful and the bureaucracy has become seriously corrupt.  Therefore, it is hard to conclude whether the corrupt society has caused more frauds in science, or whether the misconduct in the scientific community happens to take place in a society experiencing major problems amid dramatic changes.

In any case, strong medicine is needed for China to combat the ailment that could jeopardize its push for innovation.