Bounty Hunters for Science
Fraud in scientific research is more common than we’d like to think. Such research can mislead entire scientific fields for years, driving futile and wasteful followup studies, and slowing down real scientific discoveries. To truly push the boundaries of knowledge, researchers should be able to base their theories and decisions on a more trustworthy scientific record.
Currently there are insufficient incentives to identify fraud and correct the record. Meanwhile, fraudsters can continue to operate with little chance of being caught. That should change: Scientific funders should establish one or more bounty programs aimed at rewarding people who identify significant problems with federally-funded research, and should particularly reward fraud whistleblowers whose careers are on the line.
Challenge and Opportunity
In 2023 it was revealed that 20 papers from Hoau-Yan Wang, an influential Alzheimer’s researcher, were marred by doctored images and other scientific misconduct. Shockingly, his research led to the development of a drug that was tested on 2,000 patients. A colleague described the situation as “embarrassing beyond words”.
There is a common belief that science is self-correcting. But what’s interesting about this case is that the scientist who uncovered Wang’s fraud was not driven by the usual academic incentives. He was being paid by Wall Street short sellers who were betting against the drug company!
This was not an isolated incident. The most notorious example of Alzheimer’s research misconduct – doctored images in Sylvain Lesné’s papers – was also discovered with the help of short sellers. And as reported in Science, Lesné’s “paper has been cited in about 2,300 scholarly articles—more than all but four other Alzheimer’s basic research reports published since 2006, according to the Web of Science database. Since then, annual NIH support for studies labeled ‘amyloid, oligomer, and Alzheimer’s’ has risen from near zero to $287 million in 2021.” While not all of that research was motivated by Lesné’s paper, it’s inconceivable that a paper with that many citations could not have had some effect on the direction of the field.
These cases show how a critical part of the scientific ecosystem – the exposure of faked research – can be undersupplied by ordinary science. Unmasking fraud is a difficult and awkward task, and few people want to do it. But financial incentives can help close those gaps.
Plan of Action
People who witness scientific fraud often stay silent due to perceived pressure from their colleagues and institutions. Whistleblowing is an undersupplied part of the scientific ecosystem.
We can correct these incentives by borrowing an idea from the Securities and Exchange Commission, whose bounty program around financial fraud pays whistleblowers 10-30% of the fines imposed by the government. The program has been a huge success, catching dozens of fraudsters and reducing the stigma around whistleblowing. The Department of Justice has recently copied the model for other types of fraud, such as healthcare fraud. The model should be extended to scientific fraud.
- Funder: Any U.S. government funding agency, such as NIH or NSF
- Eligibility: Research employees with insider knowledge from having worked in a particular lab
- Cost: The program should ultimately pay for itself, both through the recoupment of grant expenditures and through the impacts on future funding, including, potentially, the trajectory of entire academic fields.
The amount of the bounty should vary with the scientific field and the nature of the whistleblower in question. For example, compare the following two situations:
- An undergraduate whistleblower who identifies a problem in a psychology or education study that hardly anyone had cited, let alone implemented in the real world
- A graduate student or postdoc who calls out their own mentor for academic fraud related to influential papers on Alzheimer’s disease or cancer.
The stakes are higher in the latter case. Few graduate students or post-docs will ever be willing to make the intense personal sacrifice of whistleblowing on their own mentor and adviser, potentially forgoing approval of their dissertation or future recommendation letters for jobs. If we want such people to be empowered to come forward despite the personal stakes, we need to make it worth their while.
Suppose that one of Lesné’s students in 2006 had been rewarded with a significant bounty for direct testimony about the image manipulation and fraud that was occurring. That reward might have saved tens of millions in future NIH spending, and would have been more than worth it. In actuality, as we know, none of Lesné’s students or postdocs ever had the courage to come forward in the face of such immense personal risk.
The Office of Research Integrity at the Department of Health and Human Services should be funded to create a bounty program for all HHS-funded research at NIH, CDC, FDA, or elsewhere. ORI’s budget is currently around $15 million per year. That should be increased by at least $1 million to account for a significant number of bounties plus at least one full-time employee to administer the program.
Conclusion
Some critics might say that science works best when it’s driven by people who are passionate about truth for truth’s sake, not for the money. But by this point it’s clear that like anyone else, scientists can be driven by incentives that are not always aligned with the truth. Where those incentives fall short, bounty programs can help.
This memo produced as part of the Federation of American Scientists and Good Science Project sprint. Find more ideas at Good Science Project x FAS
The current lack of public trust in AI risks inhibiting innovation and adoption of AI systems, meaning new methods will not be discovered and new benefits won’t be felt. A failure to uphold high standards in the technology we deploy will also place our nation at a strategic disadvantage compared to our competitors.
We need a new agency that specializes in uncovering funding opportunities that were overlooked elsewhere. Judging from the history of scientific breakthroughs, the benefits could be quite substantial.
A shift toward more circular, transparent systems would not only reduce waste and increase efficiency, but also unlock new business models, strengthen supply chain resilience, and give consumers better, more reliable information about the products they choose.
By better harnessing the power of data, we can build a learning healthcare system where outcomes drive continuous improvement and where healthcare value leads the way.