Whistleblowing

Research misconduct in its different forms seems to prevail persistently in the scientific community. Misconduct undermines the scientific integrity significantly and leads to harmful effects on science, scientists and the public. (Kornefeld 2012). Some national or institutional policies or codes of conduct for research integrity state an incontestable obligation for a researcher to report misconduct if one witnesses, or there are justified reasons to assume that misconduct has taken place (allegation in good faith) (see e.g. Sieber 2012). For example, the National Academy of Sciences (2009) has formulated a well-known statement according to which ‘someone who has witnessed the misconduct has an unmistakable obligation to act.’ As far, European ALLEA code of conduct (2017) does not directly state the obligation for reporting. However, it defines the ignorance or covering up of misconduct as an unacceptable practice in itself. Thus, reporting of misconduct is assumed as part of the responsible research practice and professional ethics of the researcher.

Further, not only individuals but also institutions are regulated by laws, other regulations or policies which are ruling them to investigate allegations made by researchers (see e.g. Sieber 2012). However, despite of these obligations and ethical responsibilities of reporting wrongdoing, misconduct continues to be highly unreported (see Breen 2016). Some studies suggest that non-reporting occurs in most of the misconduct cases.

Major reasons for under-reporting of misconduct cases supposedly relates to the fact that blowing the whistle often brings negative consequences for the complainant (Breen 2016; Kornfeld 2012; Malek 2010). These harmful consequences for whistleblowers might be severe both in direct and indirect ways. Whistleblower might for example face the danger of being fired or the threat of determination of the work contract. A whistleblower might be blacklisted from future opportunities and denied salary increases, promotions or tenure. More generally,  he or she might suffer from damage to the professional and scholarly reputation. These all have potential further effects on family income, which makes the issue more difficult. One study reported that 40 percent of whistleblowers were subjected to counter allegation and 25% being ostracized as a consequence of reporting misconduct. Thus, the fear of retaliation taking different forms is very realistic for a would-be whistleblower. (Malek 2010, 119–122.)

Would-be whistleblowers do not only potentially face the threats of being harmed by the act of whistleblowing. When considering whether or not to blow the whistle, he or she also confronts the moral burden and possible consequences of not reporting. The potential impact of misconduct a  would-be whistleblower has witnessed might have very severe and irreversible effects on people’s life and for society at large. In case a would-be whistleblower decides not to report, he or she will have to face consequences of non-reporting, including a moral and psychological burden, such as a feeling of failure and bad conscious. It is evident that the would-be whistleblower confronts a highly difficult ethical dilemma in his or her moral consideration on whether or not to report the wrongdoing. There is no easy way out of this dilemma and the moral burden it embeds. As Malek (2010) suggests, on the one hand it seems inappropriate for a researcher to base his or her considerations purely on self-interest and thus prioritize his or her own immediate wellbeing. On the other hand, it would be morally susceptible to assume that individuals should bear the whole burden of wrongdoing conducted by other person/s and sacrifice his or her own wellbeing and career. The balance between legitimate self-interest and appropriate self-sacrifice lies somewhere in between these extremes and is highly situational.

There are also institutional reasons for under-reporting and under-examining of possible misconduct cases. Reporting and investigating misconduct might be perceived as harming the scientific community and institutions for example by decreasing public trust in science and by expelling possible funders. On the other hand, it has been suggested that the routine reporting of misconduct has the potential to improve the public’s trust in science as this signals that misconduct is not accepted and the academic community monitors its ethical conduct. It is also suggested that consistent reporting might create a deterrent effect, which prevents future misconduct. (Malek 2010.)

There is an urgent need for improving and developing institutional and organizational systems and processes of whistleblower protection. For example, the ALLEA Code of conduct for Researchers (2017) imposes the responsibility to “Institutions [to] protect the rights of ‘whistleblowers’ during investigations and ensure that their career prospects are not endangered.” Please see more on introducing the system of whistleblower protection in section 'developing infrastructure'.

References

ALLEA (2017). European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Revised edition. http://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-2017.pdf.

Breen, K. J. (2016). Research misconduct: time for a re-think? Internal Medicine Journal, 46 (6), 729–733. https://doi.org/10.1111/imj.13075

Decoo, W. (2001). Crisis on Campus. Confronting Academic Misconduct. Cambridge, MA.

Kornfeld, D. S. (2012). Research Misconduct: The Search for a Remedy. Academic Medicine, 87 (7), 877–882. DOI:10.1097/ACM.0b013e318257ee6a

Malek, J. (2010). To Tell or Not to Tell? The Ethical Dilemma of the Would-Be Whistleblower. Accountability in Research, 17 (3), 115–129. DOI: 10.1080/08989621003791929

National Academy of Sciences (2009). On being a Scientist. A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. Third edition. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. http://biblioteca.ucv.cl/site/colecciones/manuales_u/12192.pdf luettu 10.6.2019

Sieber, J. E. (2012). Witnesses to Research Wrongdoing. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 7 (5), 3–14. DOI:10.1525/jer.2012.7.5.3