Abstract
In May 2006, you published a review ‘Research misconduct: poisoning the well’ by former editor of the British Medical Journal Richard Smith 1 in which the problem of identifying scientific fraud was discussed and a general failure to develop methods for examination of possible cases was noted. He stated that, unlike many other countries, the Nordic countries had developed processes yet chose to highlight a case from Norway in which he, as editor of the BMJ, had successfully asked an author's employer to investigate. That investigation at the University of Oslo found that ‘there was not a problem with the work’. The paper by Norwegian general practitioner Dr Grethe Støa Birketvedt was published in the BMJ 2 with a ‘sceptical’ commentary from Professor John Garrow. 3
The matter might have rested there had Dr Smith not added ‘I am not sure if the work was fraudulent, but I am left with severe doubts’ in his 2006 JRSM article, 13 years after the first misconduct investigation in Oslo. This damaging comment published in the JRSM and repeated in Dr Smith's book has led to professional difficulties for the investigator formerly under suspicion and ultimately led to a re-examination of the case all over again, this time by the ethical committee of the University of Tromsø where she had received a PhD in 1995 [JF was the supervisor, ARL was the principal external examiner]. In August 2009, the University of Tromsø announced that, following a very thorough enquiry into the issue, the Research Ethics Committee concluded that allegations of scientific misconduct were unfounded [including an identity confirmation from University Director, University of Tromsø], 4 yet no effort has been made to publicize this finding of ‘not guilty’.
While we support every effort to identify cases of fraud and withdraw papers presenting fraudulent claims, we feel that scientific journals have an equally strong moral obligation to make a clear statement when a suspect investigator has been found not guilty.
Footnotes