Talk:List of scientific misconduct incidents

Trimming
Motivated by this discussion, I am starting the process of trimming this article in such a way as to lessen the possibility of WP:BLP, WP:POVFORK, and WP:NOT issues. This will include removing entries for individuals of questionable notability, defined here as individuals lacking an enWiki article. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I came to the talk page to try figure out what'd happened to the list. I understand the BLP concerns, but I'd really have preferred a more thorough search than 'redlinked name on enwiki' for determining the borderlands of notability. At least one of the removed names (Ahimastos-Lamberti) I'm confident enough in the notability of to have been working on an article, and more broadly I've found this list an excellent source of notable people without articles. I'm also concerned about disparate impact in what names were removed, as a disproportionate number were from non-English-speaking backgrounds; the resulting list likely majorly underrepresents people from parts of the world less covered by enwiki and accordingly makes it less likely articles will be written for those subjects, cementing our Anglosphere/Western bias. Vaticidalprophet 00:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I encourage you to join the discussion here, where most participants are of the mind that individuals should not be listed here unless they have a page on enWiki. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I understand the potential BLP issues and there seems to be consensus on that point. I believe your concern regarding the resulting list likely majorly underrepresents people from parts of the world less covered by enwiki and accordingly makes it less likely articles will be written for those subjects, cementing our Anglosphere/Western bias is quite interesting and merits further discussion among those editors. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Updated link to archived discussion. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Why are the illegal and inhumane experiments of Joseph Mengele and dozens of other Nazi physicians not on the list? This entry seems to suffer from recency bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterngard (talk • contribs) 23:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria
Per the discussion here, and in an effort to avoid potential PAG issues going forward, explicit inclusion criteria for this dynamic list have been added. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

graphene nanoribbon
Nagoya university's internal report said (https://en.nagoya-u.ac.jp/news/upload_images/20220316_report.pdf), Itami did NOT fabricated data. But current article says that he falsified data.

In addition, the same point is mentioned on the Itami's talk page, so it should be changed to the factual content I (かりーらいす) wrote. かりーらいす (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The nagoya internal report is itself not secondary, and therefore not reliable, for verifying this content. it is too close to the situation itself, and has a vested interest in not reporting it as objectively as possible. We need secondary independent reliable news reports which back up this interpretation. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The report is not internal not only because it is publicized on the web but also because the investigation committee consists of a number of external members such as 6 professors and lawyers in other institutions. In the final concluding paragraph in the report (page 9), it said "Professors K. Itami and H. Ito were not involved in the misconduct, but they were the corresponding authors. The degree of the breach of the duty of care is "high" because they failed to prevent the misconduct in the papers by failing to perform necessary checks, which the corresponding authors should have performed.". Therefore, the corrections made by かりーらいす should be accepted. Amino-protecting-groups (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That the report was publicized on the web and that the committee contained some external members are irrelevant. The source of the report is the university, and as Shibbolethink correctly explained above, that means it can not be considered a reliable, secondary, independent source. The JSPS report, which is reliable and completely independent of the university, clearly reported that Itami (and others) was sanctioned for misconduct. On the English Wikipedia, content is determined by what is reported in reliable sources, and not on what we editors think or wish should be reported. Please see WP:RS and WP:TRUE. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In the report from MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan) (https://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/jinzai/fusei/1360847_00008.htm), it is officially reported that that previous graduate student of Nagoya University alone conducted the misconduct. Amino-protecting-groups (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That source certainly seems focused on the graduate student. But more importantly, it does not, in any way, exonerate Itami from having committed scientific misconduct, nor does it claim that Itami did not commit scientific misconduct. That the report is focused on the student certainly does not mitigate the reliably sourced fact from the JSPS report that Itami did commit scientific misconduct (which, after all, is the subject of this Wikipedia article) and was sanctioned because of it. If you are suggesting that JSPS sanctions people who, from their perspective, do not commit scientific misconduct, you will need independent secondary sources to support that claim. That others in his group also committed misconduct is unfortunate but not particularly relevant here, as they are not notable people.
 * It is clear that you (and かりーらいす) are a single-purpose account attempting to remove content related to Itami's reliably sourced scientific misconduct. I must therefore ask: do you have any personal or professional relationship with Itami, or are you Itami? If so, you have a conflict of interest with the subject and should not be editing any content related to Itami - please see WP:COI for an explanation. I also suggest that you read the article on the Streisand effect. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's true that in the JSPS report, it is mentioned only for the previous graduate student not Itami. It was found that in the official report of JST (https://www.jst.go.jp/osirase/2022/20220408.html) clearly mentioning that Itami was not involved in the misconduct. It said, "JST certifies 1 former graduate student as a researcher who was involved in misconduct in JST projects, and 1 professor and 1 associate professor who were not involved in misconduct but were responsible for papers related to research that involved misconduct as an author.". In section 3 of this report, it said the professor is Kenichiro Itami and the associate professor is Hideto Ito. Amino-protecting-groups (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The MEXT report link that Amino-protecting-groups showed is for a different case. Here is the correct report (https://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/jinzai/fusei/1360847_00011.html). Here it is stated that 1 professor (Kenichiro Itami) and 1 associate professor has not involved misconduct. かりーらいす (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I note the (sourced) lead for the enWiki article on MEXT: "[MEXT is] part of the executive branch of the Government of Japan...Its goal is to improve the development of Japan in relation with the international community." As an organization with Public relations in its purpose, that seems to place the ministry alongside Nagoya University as an organization that would be interested in actively downplaying scientific misconduct attached to a senior investigator at the expense of a near-anonymous and certainly non-notable student. As such its statements/reports/output should be considered unreliable for this topic.
 * Look, I am confident that a compromise can be achieved here, such that the reliably sourced scientific misconduct attached to Itami can be presented in such a way as to include some aspect of Itami not being the only person involved/implicated. I am happy to work with editors toward that compromise. What I cannot agree to, however, is that we present material that intentionally ignores reliably-sourced content. That's not how this encyclopedia works. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course, we must not ignore reliably sources, and it is necessary to show a source when we describe the contents. But I cannot find a source that Itami involved in research misconduct. Could you show any source that he did? かりーらいす (talk) 07:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue is not whether Itami knowingly (or unknowingly) committed specific acts like fraud or data falsification. The issue is instead that reliable sources report that Itami committed scientific misconduct. The JSPS report (which you already know about) reads: "Details of misconduct As a result of the investigation by the investigative institution, it was determined that forgery and falsification were carried out in three papers. Details of measures ○ Order for reimbursement of research funds Demand reimbursement of research funds that are directly related to misconduct. ○ Period during which research funds are not granted,  (Graduate School of Science, Nagoya University, Former Graduate Student) Reiwa will not grant research funds for seven years from FY4 to FY Reiwa 10. Kenichiro Itami (Professor, Graduate School of Science, Nagoya University) Reiwa will not grant research funds for three years from FY4 to FY Reiwa 6.) Hideto Ito (Associate Professor, Graduate School of Science, Nagoya University) Reiwa will not grant research funds for three years from FY4 to FY Reiwa 6." The translation is imperfect but the content is perfectly clear: Itami (and others) engaged in scientific misconduct, the consequences of which were that research funds were reimbursed, and Itami (and others) was explicitly restricted from receiving research funding for a period of time. I further note that Itami's scientific misconduct was independently reported in another reliable source here. I am repeatedly emphasizing scientific misconduct because that is the sole issue here.
 * As I wrote earlier, I am willing to work with you to constructively edit the relevant passages. It is clear, however, that you are a single-purpose account, editing the English Wikipedia with the sole intention of whitewashing content about Itami. That your editing is temporally and topically coordinated with another single-purpose account (Amino-protecting-groups) has me seriously considering a request at WP:SPI for a CU check for sock puppetry. I would rather work with you to edit content than spend time in an effort that could lead to you and the other account being blocked. This will likely be my final post on this topic, as I believe the issues have here been clearly presented and sufficiently discussed. I am sorry that Itami committed scientific misconduct, but he is a notable scientist and that misconduct was reported in reliable sources. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @かりーらいす Would you be able to please answer this: I must therefore ask: do you have any personal or professional relationship with Itami, or are you Itami? from @JoJo Anthrax. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 03:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No. かりーらいす (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "No" that you have no connection whatsoever to Itami (or editor Amino-protecting-groups, for that matter), or "No" that you refuse to answer the question? Sorry to be harping on this, but even when assuming good faith it seems quite...peculiar, that two independent WP:SPA editors should emerge on a page, at the same time, to promote the same content, content that some could consider WP:PROMO. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I am sorry for not being clear. I have no connection whatsoever to Itami and Amino-protecting groups. かりーらいす (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Per the discussion above, edits made to clearly indicate that other lab members committed misconduct (without naming them, as they are not notable). An additional reliable source was also added. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with this as a valuable compromise. Our sources are clear that Itami is implicated (and should be, as with all research, the responsibility ultimately falls to the group director or lead investigator), but also that the graduate student perpetrated the misconduct. I would say including these facts is an excellent solution. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Jolanda Spadavecchia material
I have followed WP:BRD by reverting a bold edit, and have now started this discussion. There are several issues attached to the desired new content. Firstly, a couple of the sources (PubPeer, and a blog site) are unreliable and should not be used. Secondly, it is not clear if Spadavecchia is sufficiently notable to be included on this list. Perhaps they are notable, but (for example) there is no enWiki page for them. Until notability can be established, I would err on the side of caution. Thirdly, the statement "repeated breach of the rules of scientific integrity albeit, according to the CNRS findings, without intentionality" seems weirdly non-specific. Was there, or wasn't there, scientific misconduct? If so, what was the precise nature of the misconduct - plagiarism, data falsification, something(s) else? Until these issues can be resolved, I suggest that the content be left out. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We have no sources in that section which are A) secondary to the subject (the CNRS bulletin is published by the institution where the work occurred and not editorially separate from it), B) reliable (the pubpeer and blogspot sources are not reliable), and C) actually verify the content in the section (the reference to the paper itself and the retraction does not actually secondarily verify any misconduct and is PRIMARY to the info. As such, this whole section violates WP:DUE and WP:V and that is also why I reverted it. We need secondary independent reliable sources for something like this, especially as a WP:BLP issue. E.g. QuackWatch, RetractionWatch, Nature News, Science News, or a secondary reliable news source from France, all of these would work. I also don't love that the account which originally introduced this is a WP:SPA which very likely has a WP:COI as it's named User:CNRSfraud.I also apologize for not explaining in my reversion why I reverted -- I was on mobile and the little "rollback" button doesn't allow one to add an edit summary. But I agree with what JoJoAnthrax has said above. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. A good use of the WP:BRD process. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC).
 * https://cen.acs.org/research-integrity/French-National-Center-Scientific-Research-faulted-over-chemistry-lab-misconduct-probe/101/web/2023/03 2A01:CB16:1A:16AF:3473:FA7A:741F:2B0E (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Retraction Watch https://retractionwatch.com/2023/03/31/journal-pulls-papers-by-embattled-scientist-at-national-research-center-in-france/ CNRSfraud (talk) 07:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Other Edit Suggestions (Add table)
I have used the page for discussions in an ethics course. It occurred to me that last time I searched for terms to identify particular professions that this page could usefully incorporate a sortable table to capture the common elements in each entry. For example, it seems that most are science frauds within the medical domain, with some subdisciplines more heavily represented. For example, oncology has a handful. One of the reasons this would be helpful is that scientific journal editors could reference and summarize for the management and oversight of their research domain. Similarly, the number of publication retractions is common across entries. Perhaps somebody who can do this agrees with me. I do not yet know how to do this, but expect to get to it some day -- perhaps retirement. (Thank you to the folks who have put in effort.)