Sir

In their Commentary 'Repairing research integrity' (Nature 453, 980—982; 2008), Sandra Titus and her colleagues argue that a failure to foster a culture of research integrity is the common denominator in scientific misconduct, which in the United States is much more prevalent than might be expected. But what would the results have been if the survey had been done in countries without the codes of good practice and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct laid down by the US Office of Research Integrity (ORI)?

Take Europe, where — apart from in Scandinavia, Germany, the United Kingdom and, to some degree, France — little or no regulation exists to control scientific misconduct. Individual cases of fraud can therefore be more easily hidden and may be far more common than in countries with established standards.

Horace Judson suggests that fraud is intrinsic in cultures “characterized by secrecy, privilege and lack of accountability” (The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science Harcourt, 2004). These features are evident in some Spanish and Italian research organizations, for example, where cronyism is rife and transparency is obscured. Russia allegedly maintains a tolerant attitude towards violations of medical ethics, and Marek Wroński claims, perhaps too strongly, that an “old boys' network” protects scientists from accusation or prosecution in Poland (M. Wroński Przegl. Lek. 55, 629–633; 1998).

In any case, the real extent of misconduct in Europe is largely unknown and inadequately investigated.

Countries from southern and eastern Europe, say, could well emulate the standards already in place elsewhere. In Scandinavia, for example, training in good research practice is mandatory for researchers, as it is in the Biomedical Research Park of Barcelona in Spain. Croatia deserves special mention: its leading medical journal has been cooperating with the ORI since 1999 and has initiated a dialogue on research integrity with the Croatian Science Ministry (M. Petrovecki and M. D. Scheetz Croat. Med. J. 42, 7–13; 2001). The journal has taken the unusual step of creating a 'research integrity' editor, and the country has been actively teaching responsible research conduct since 1996.

Punishment makes no sense without prevention, and prevention is necessary because, as noted by Titus and colleagues, self-regulation is unlikely to be effective.

See also: Integrity: juniors see leaders gain from calculated dishonesty Integrity: misconduct by a few damages credibility for many Integrity: how to measure breaches effectively Titus et al. reply