Seven forged laboratory results led to an earthquake scandal for pharmaceutical giant Novartis losses running into millions are at stake. But manipulation is no exception elsewhere, either: If you're not successful, you quickly come under pressure. Scene of the crime was a laboratory, where mice were given «cancer-in-hibiting» substances. The results were to contribute to the development of a promising new medication. But what the head of the laboratory sold as a success became a first-grade forgery scandal for Novartis: The laboratory results were invented. Forgeries also occur in Germany. At the renowned Max Planck Institute in Cologne, a scientist «proved» that a particular enzyme acts as a signal in hormones. The «scientific sensation» turned out to be a clever manipulation. At the Max-Delbrück-Center in Berlin, two scientists, husband and wife, presented laboratory cancer tests that led to a great interest in numerous international specialist magazines and will likely continue to do so: A specially created task force is still working on cleaning up the mess its task is to carefully sift through 550 publications searching for manipulations. And that will take a while: Many laboratory notes in which the tests are supposed to be documented do not exist, as the head of the task force, Ulf Rapp, Professor at the Institute of medical radiation and cell research in Würzburg, Germany, deplores. «Keep quiet, everybody's doing it.» According to the Spiegel, a well-known Germany weekly magazine, cancer researcher Friedhelm Herrmann, one of the leading figures in the Berlin forgery scandal, told a confused Ph.D. student who confronted him with a forged picture to cool her heels, everyone was doing that type of thing. It appears that the research community would prefer to sort out this scandal amongst themselves in a place where the public seldom gains ac cess: in the ivory tower of science. This certainly does not contribute to the search for the truth which scientists keep propagating as a higher ideal. And not only that: Companies and institutes suffer losses running into millions and the trust in the objectivity claimed by science is ruined. There is even more at stake: In a worst-case scenario, the life of patients is at risk. In an internal «Guideline for action in case of suspicion of scientific misdemeanor» of the Max-Planck- Gesellschaft, references can also be found to «manslaughter» and «willful or negligent bodily injury». This makes the dimensions clear. Is this all just agitation? A medical doctor in Munich who was questioned during the investigation against the forgers from Berlin declared that some of the publications in question could indeed have consequences for patients. The scandals demonstrate the dilemma in which research laboratories all too often find themselves and where often, the same rules are valid as in the rest of the industry: Power, prestige and money are all that matters. Where budgets running into millions are used for research behind closed laboratory doors, temptation is difficult to resist as well as the danger that pressure will be exerted from the top down or that sponsors decide what is what. These conditions make for an ideal breeding ground for manipulation. Christopher Anderegg, a medical doctor, biologist and former animal experimenter in a laboratory of a pharmaceutical company, is very familiar with this type of pressure: «Researchers have to publish something no matter where. Publish or perish is what counts and scientists are confronted with this type of thinking very early on. And: «Apparent successes are loudly proclaimed, negative results are not concealed.» Anderegg has completely withdrawn from research and today heads the Swiss group «Aktion für Mensch und Tier», a organization which is against animal experiments in human medicine. A US study confirms the experiences of many researchers: Nearly one out of five researchers has had an experience where undesirable results were held back or completely discarded. And in medication tests, the situation is that if the tests are successful, the scientists are often suspiciously close to the pharmaceutical industry, if they are negative, they are seldom close to the industry. Code of honor for scientific conduct In this «jungle» (as the head of an investigation team calls it), one is forced to think about how manipulation can be avoided in the future. The Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, often in demand as a sponsor for projects, has reacted with a code of honor for decent conduct in science. The core of the recommendations is that it must be clearly laid down in the workgroups who is the head of the group and thus responsible; all key data must be documented. In publications, it must be made clear who is the author responsible; in crises, independent confidants and spokespeople are available. The renowned «Cochrane Collaboration», a network of high-level, international experts, has developed a procedure that might help to differentiate between fact and fiction: The scientists go through relevant studies and pass them on to a central registry. There, the results are placed under close scrutiny: Under what conditions was the study carried out (double blind testing, control groups, random selection of test persons) How were the results reached? Is the original data available? Thus, the testers will try to eliminate badly conducted studies and target manipulation as far as possible. Scientific journals such as "The Lancet" or the "British Medical Journal" have only one effective weapon against forgeries: Scientists need to exchange their work. But even here, there are limits. Jürg P. Bleuer of the documentation service of the academy of medical sciences and member of the Cochrane workgroup in Switzerland says: «It's like forging money poor forgeries are easier to figure out than well-done ones.» Protection against forgery could only be given by a world-wide register that would make the raw data available for recalculation. But the fierce competition between researchers, says the «Cochrane Collaboration», will probably prevent this happening in the near future. But how much control can science bear? Generally speaking, says Novartis on the Basel forgery scandal, control ought to take place within the team itself this did, after all, work in the manipulations that were brought to light: Colleagues became suspicious because the results were «too positive». At the same time, too much reglementation was also spoken out against «If controls are too strict, they inhibit creativity.» However, in the end, this is but an appeal to the ethics and morals of the researchers. For as long as the efficiency of a scientific laboratory is measured chiefly in what can be sold, the «selfpurging» forces will probably be extremely limited.

The tricks of the research laboratories Results are discarded if they do not fit into the concept of the sponsor. 'I can always get the right scientist with the right results if I pay for it.' -this is the sentence with which specialist journalists Antje Bultmann and Friedemann Schmithals quote a client in their book «Käufliche Wissenschaft». Those who pay are the ones who make the decisions. Research results are held back for fear of the competition profiting from them. Thus, it is possible that several teams of researchers concurrently work on the same problem and that the research funds, rather low as they are, are spent several times for the same project. If you are successful you will rise to the top more quickly. As a rule of thumb, projects (and money) are more easily granted if laboratories can show "tangible" results. Publications in renowned, international specialist magazines polish one's image. Those who regularly appear as authors on the covers of the specialized magazines have a high profile among their colleagues. And those who can document «successes» are likely to receive more research funds.

By Bernhard Merkel, first published in 'Pulstip',9/10, 1998