Authors

  • Bryan A Liang UCSD
  • Tim K Mackey UCSD
  • Kimberly M Lovett Stanford Law School

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5912/jcb623

Keywords:

dishonesty, cheating, medicine, trainees, technology, editorial boards, academic centers, conflicts of interest

Abstract

Technology has promoted global health. Yet advancing technology has also allowed physicians and trainees to cheat, and inappropriate experimentation with medical technology has resulted in study patient deaths. Further, journal editors have not made significant inroads in employing technology to identify dishonesty. Unfortunately, this continues to be strongly within the culture of the profession. Due to corruption of medicine, global health promotion will be severely retarded by falsified and suspect data that lower-and-middle income countries cannot afford to reproducethemselves and must rely upon for clinical decisionmaking. Further, clinical environments that facilitate dishonesty will result in poorer patient care. In addition, emerging markets rely on research to produce advanced therapeutics such as biosimilars that will be used by developed and developing economies, compounding the potential risks of dishonesty globally. By employing relevant antiplagiarism technology and accessing funding sources for all parties including authors, reviewers, and journal editors; “honesty†accreditation that includes mandated participation by journals; and external audits and whistleblowing of dishonesty, medical culture globally can move toward honesty and take advantage of technological evolution to promote global health.

Author Biographies

Bryan A Liang, UCSD

Department of Anesthesiology, University of California, San Diego School of Medicine; San Diego Center for Patient Safety, University of California, San Diego School of Medicine; and, the Program on Health Policy & Law, University of California, San Diego

Tim K Mackey, UCSD

Department of Anesthesiology, University of California, San Diego School of Medicine; Program on Health Policy & Law, University of California, San Diego; and California Western School of Law.

Kimberly M Lovett, Stanford Law School

is in the San Diego Center for Patient Safety, University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, and Stanford Law School.

References

References

Liang, B.A., and Mackey T. (2012) Tipping Point: Biosimilars, Emerging Markets, and Public-Private Engagement to Promote Global Health. J Comm Biotech. 18(4):65-74.

Roseman, M., Milette, K., Bero, L.A., et al. (2011). Reporting of Conflicts of Interest in Meta-Analyses of Trials of Pharmacological Treatments. JAMA. 305:1008-1017.

Ehringhaus, S.H., Weissman, J.S., Sears, J.L., Goold, S.D., Feibelmann, S., and Campbell, E.D. (2008). Responses of medical schools to institutional conflicts of interest. JAMA. 299(6):665-671.

Choudhry, N.K., Stelfox, H.T., and Detsky, A.S. (2002). Relationships Between Authors of Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Pharmaceutical Industry. JAMA. 287:612-618.

Ryan, K.J. (1999). Research misconduct in clinical research–the American experience and response. Acta Oncol. 38(1):93–7.

Wilmshurst, P. (2002). Institutional corruption in medicine. BMJ 325(7374):1232–5. [published erratum appears in BMJ 2003;326(7384):333].

Simpson, D.E., Yindra, K.J., Towne, J.B., and Rosenfeld, P.S. (1989).

Medical students' perceptions of cheating. Acad Med 64(4):221–2.

Sierles, F., Hendrickx, I., and Circle, S. (1980). Cheating in medical school. J Med Educ. 55(2):124–5.

Stimmel, B. (1990). Cheating in medical school: a problem or an annoyance? R I Med J. 73(9):413–6.

Young, T.A. (1997). Teaching medical students to lie. The disturbing contradiction: medical ideals and the resident-selection process. CMAJ. 156(2):219–22.

Harper, M.G. (2006). High-tech cheating. Nurse Educ Today. 26(8):672–9.

Sheehan, K.H., Sheehan, D.V., White, K., Leibowitz, A., and Baldwin, D.C. Jr. (1990). A pilot study of medical student ‘abuse’. Student perceptions of mistreatment and misconduct in medical school. JAMA 263(4):533–7.

Moffatt, B., and Elliot, C. (2007). Ghost Writing: Pharmaceutical Companies and Ghostwritten Journal Articles. Perspec Biol Med. 50:18-20.

Smith, R. (2003). Editorial misconduct. BMJ 326(7401):1224–5.

Wilson, D. (2009). Medical Schools Quizzed on Ghostwriting. NY Times, 18 Nov.:B2.

Lock, S. (1982). Peer review weighed in the balance. BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 285(6350):1224–6.

Manwell, C., and Baker, C.M. (1981). Honesty in science: a partial test of a sociobiological model of the social structure of science. Search 12(6):151–60.

Ingelfinger, F.J. (1974). Peer review in biomedical publication. Am J Med. 56(5):686–92.

Liang, B.A. and Mackey, T. (2010). Confronting Conflict: Addressing Institutional Conflicts of Interest in Academic Medical Centers. Am J Law Med. 36(1):136-187.

Department of Justice. (2005). Press Release: U.S. Settles Case of Gene Therapy Study that Ended with Teen’s Death. Feb. 9.

Transparency International. The Global Coalition Against Corruption. http://www.transparency.org. Accessed March 19, 2013.

Liang, B.A. (2010). Comment: Accuracy of Conflict-of-Interest Disclosures Reported by Physicians. Surv Anes. 54(2):63-64.

Reproducibility Initiative. 2012. Available at: https://www.scienceexchange.com/reproducibility (last accessed Mar. 4, 2013).

Liang, B.A. and Mackey, T. (2011). Quality and Safety in Health Care: What Does What the Future Hold? Arch Path Lab Med. 135:1425-1431.

National Academy of Sciences. National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine. (2012). On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine.

Stapleton, P. (2012). Gauging the effectiveness of anti-plagiarism software: An empirical study of second language graduate writers. J Engl Acad Purp. 11(2):125-133.

Walker, J. (2010). Measuring plagiarism: researching what students do, not what they say they do. Stud Higher Ed. 35:41-59.

Merrill, J.B., Ornstein, C., Weber, T., Wei, S., Nguyen, D. (2013). ProPublica.org. 11 Mar. Dollars for Docs: How Industry Dollars Reach Your Doctors.