How big a problem is research fraud, especially in the soft sciences like psychology, economics, and political science? By now, most people in Academia are familiar with the case of Diederik Stapel, a former professor of social psychology at Tilburg University who allegedly fabricated data in over 50 of his published research papers. (See, e.g., Ewen Callaway, “Report finds massive fraud at Dutch universities,” Nature, Vol. 479 (Nov. 1, 2011), p. 15.) Then there is the more recent case of Michael LaCour, a PhD candidate at UCLA who also allegedly fabricated data for a social science study that was published (and then later retracted) by the journal Science. (See Marcia McNutt, “Editorial expression of concern,” Science, Vol. 348, no. 6239 (June 5, 2015), p. 1100. By the way, we are using the word “allegedly” in these cases in order to immunize ourselves from legal liability for defamation.)
In truth, cases of research fraud in science are still relatively rare overall (though such cases do appear to be increasing), and one of the virtues of science is that it’s a self-correcting process. Sooner or later, alleged frauds like Stapel and LaCour will be detected and exiled from Academia. But at the same time, even a few publicized cases of research fraud can threaten the credibility of science as a whole, presenting a distorted view of science to the public and providing ammunition to science’s detractors. (But don’t take our word for it; consider the “ClimateGate” controversy.)
In this blog post (and in an ongoing legal research project that we are currently working on), we pose a different question, a legal one. Under what conditions, if any, could academic institutions themselves (e.g. universities, research institutes, etc.) be legally liable for fraud committed by their researchers? Under the well-established legal theory of vicarious liability as well as centuries of common law precedents, for example, a principal or “master” can be legally liable for the harms caused by its agents or employees, but only if those harms occurred within the scope of the agent’s or employee’s employment. Thus, if the following two conditions are met—(1) if a fraudulent researcher is employed by a university or other academic institution, and (2) if the researcher’s fraud has occurred within the scope of his employment—then one can make a very strong legal case indeed for imposing vicarious liability against the university itself. Continue reading →
prior probability 