---
title: "Scientific integrity"
chunk: 2/7
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_integrity"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:33.558998+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

=== Emergence of the issue ===
Before the 1970s, ethical issues were largely focused on the conduct of medical experiments, especially in regard to tests on humans. In 1803, the "code" of Thomas Percival created a moral foundation for experimental treatments that "was built upon fairly regularly" throughout the next two centuries, notably by Walter Reed in 1898 and by the Berlin code in 1900. After the Second World War, the Nazi human experimentations motivated the development of international, widely acknowledged codes of research ethics, such as the Nuremberg code (1947) and the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki.
According to Kenneth Pimple, Charles Babbage was the first author to set aside the specific issue of scientific integrity. In the Reflections on the Decline of Science in England, and on Some of its Causes, first published in 1830, Babbage identified four classes of scientific frauds, from outright forgery to varied degrees of arrangements and cooking of the data or the methods.
Research integrity became a major debated topic in biological sciences after 1970, due to a combination of factors: the development of advanced data analysis methods, the growing commercial relevancy of fundamental research, and the increased focus of federal funding agencies in the context of big science. In 1974, the "painted mouse incident" attracted unprecedented media attention: William Summerlin inked a black dot on a mouse to claim a treatment has been a success. Between 1979 and 1981, several major cases of scientific fraud and plagiarism drew a greater focus on the issue from researchers and policymakers in the United States: as many as four important frauds occurred in the summer of 1980.
At the time, the "scientific community responded to reports of 'scientific fraud' (as it was often called) by asserting that such cases are rare and that neither errors nor deception can be hidden for long because of science's self-correcting nature". A journalist of Science, William Brad, took the opposite position and made an influential contribution to the issue of research integrity. In an answer to the US House of Representatives Science and Technology subcommittee, he highlighted that "cheating in science was nothing new" but, until recently, "had been handled as an internal affair". In a detailed investigation co-signed with Nicholas Wade, Betrayers of Science, Brad described scientific fraud as a structural problem: "As more cases of frauds broke into public view (…) we wondered if fraud wasn't a quite regular minor feature of the scientific landscape (…) Logic, replication, peer review — all had been successfully defied by scientific forgers, often for extended periods of time." Other early assessments of the systematicity of scientific frauds presented a more nuanced picture. For Patricia Wolff, along with a few obvious manipulations, there were a wide range of grey areas, which were due to the complexity of fundamental research: "the boundaries between egregious self-deception, culpable carelessness, fraud, and just plain error, can be very blurred indeed". Characteristically, the debate led to a re-evaluation of past scientific practices. In 1913, a well-known scientific experiment on electron charge by Robert Millikan was explicitly based on discarding some results that would not agree with the underlying theory: while well received at the time, by the 1980s this work had come to be considered as a textbook example of scientific manipulation.

=== Formalization of research integrity ===
By the end of the 1980s, the amplification of misconduct scandals and the heightened political and public scrutiny put scientists in a difficult position in the United States and elsewhere: "The tone of the 1988 US congressional oversight hearings, chaired by Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), that investigated how research institutions were responding to misconduct allegations reinforced many scientists' view that both they and scientific research itself were under siege." The main answer was procedural: research integrity has "been codified into numerous codes of conduct field specific, national, and international alike." This policy response largely stemmed from research communities, funders and scientific administrators. In the United States, the United States Public Health Service and the National Science Foundation adopted "similar definitions of misconduct in science" in 1989 and 1991. The concepts of research integrity and its reverse, scientific misconduct were especially relevant from the perspective funding bodies, since it made it possible to "delineate the research-related practices that merit intervention": lack of integrity led not only to unethical but inefficient research and funds have better to be allocated elsewhere.
After 1990, there was a "veritable explosion of scientific codes of conduct". In 2007 the OECD published a report on best practices for promoting scientific integrity and preventing misconduct in science (Global Science Forum). Such international texts include:

European Charter for Researchers (2005)
the Singapore statement on research integrity (2010)
European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity of All European Academies (ALLEA) and the European Science Foundation (ESF) (2011 revised in 2017).
There are no global estimates of the total number of codes of conduct related to research integrity. A UNESCO project, the Global Ethics Observatory (no longer accessible after 2021), referenced 155 codes of conduct but "this is probably just a fraction of the total number of codes produced in recent years." Codes have been created in highly diverse settings and show a wide variation in scale and ambition. Along with national-scale codes, there are codes for scientific societies, institutions and R&D services. While these normative texts may frequently share a core of common principles, there has been growing concern "over fragmentation, lack of interoperability and varying understandings of central terms can be sensed".