Munich

Senior scientists in Germany believe that the increased reporting of research misconduct in the media there is damaging public confidence in science, a survey conducted by Nature has found.

Many acknowledge continuing problems in maintaining good scientific practice and handling allegations of misconduct, particularly in protecting 'whistleblowers' who report misconduct. But two in five said it is “unrealistic” to demand strict adherence to good scientific practice in all circumstances.

The survey, the first to test researchers' opinions after a stream of well-publicized scientific fraud cases in Germany, was conducted among top researchers who serve as reviewers for the DFG, the country's main granting agency. Of 211 researchers contacted in all scientific disciplines, 77 responded.

The DFG has taken a lead in setting standards for scientific practice and ensuring adoption of these and of investigative procedures. Some of its officials support a 'zero tolerance' policy in which all misconduct would be investigated and punished.

But 40% of respondents say deviations could be accepted in some circumstances. For example, says one, “honorary authorship is justified in some individual cases”.

Some two-thirds said that they had had personal experience of misconduct, either directly or indirectly. Most felt that it is a major problem in clinical research (80%) and the life sciences (59%), but only 4% felt that this is the case in physics and chemistry.

A quarter said they thought that the overall incidence of misconduct is increasing. Eighty-five per cent said that the DFG system is helpful in exposing fraud and protecting the rights of accused scientists. But one-third said that whistleblowers are inadequately protected. Nearly half said that newspaper reports create “an atmosphere of distrust”, although a similar proportion believe that journalists play a useful role.

In German universities, researchers can confide their suspicions either to a local ombudsman at their institution, or to one of the DFG's three independent ombudsmen. These can start enquiries, either by the university itself or by a DFG-appointed panel.

DFG ombudsman Hans-Heinrich Trute, a law professor at the University of Hamburg, says he doesn't know why some young scientists apparently do not trust his office, taking their concerns to newspapers instead.

Holger Wormer, a journalist at Munich's leading newspaper the Süddeutsche Zeitung, who has covered several cases, says whistleblowers come to him because they fear that top scientists will protect each other. “It helps that we provide a bit of pressure to break down these old-boy networks,” he says.

Trute agrees that more could be done to protect whistleblowers. In Germany, they have to prove that they are victims of malevolent reprisals, he says: the burden of proof should be shifted to those in power to prove they are not, as in the United States. But he sympathizes with scientists who voice doubts about 'zero tolerance' policies. “Sometimes intuition requires a bit of licence,” he says.

Peter Hofschneider, emeritus director at the Max Planck Institute for Biochemistry at Martinsried near Munich, who has acted as an informal confidant in several cases, agrees. Young scientists “should not necessarily have their whole research career destroyed because of one misdemeanour”, he says.