In the last couple of years, questionably research practices and fraudulent researchers have received more and more attention from the scientific world. In an attempt to halt the deterioration of the reputation of science, drastical actions are often proposed. One of the solutions presented to counteract QRP is the implementation of more and stricter rules. The scientific world however, will not necessarily benefit from increased regulation.
Undesirable (always) and unethical (some cases) as the questionable practices are, we should be careful not to overreact and implement ‘solutions’ that incriminate scientific research even further. The implementation of a large set of rules might work well against some of the QRP’s but usually also leads to the following; an increase in administrative burden; increased waiting times between application and approval; etc. in one word: bureaucracy (see Kafka for some examples of bureaucracy at its finest). Science, in most fields, is changing rapidly and scientist experiment with new practices and new ways of working. Large bureaucratic institutions however, have the tendency to move forward and adapt in a rather sluggish pace (if at all). Regulation and the enforcement thereof will not be able to keep pace with the fast advances that some fields make. One can imagine that dealing with rules that do not adapt to changing circumstances might slow down, and prohibit new research. The point I’m trying to make is that we should not all follow each other in blindly screaming that we need rules and guidelines (when in fact we need integrity) in our quest to improve scientific practice, but also to keep in mind that a lot of the suggested solutions for misconduct have possible drawbacks.
n.b. This blog is not meant to advice against all regulation, just as a warning that we should not, in our enthusiasm to improve, make matters worse.