As Louis Pasteur once said, “Science knows no country, because knowledge belongs to humanity, and is the torch which illuminates the world.” Science is, in many ways, a universal language. However, as a practical reality, science relies on other languages to be communicated. While the very earliest science we know of today was published in Egyptian hieroglyphs, early Greek, and Latin, developing eventually to a rough split between French, German, and English,
English became the dominant language during the past hundred years. This, unsurprisingly,
presents a challenge to non-native English-speaking scientists, who must often learn a new language alongside their scientific training and research.
Researchers who are not native English speakers may face additional difficulties when dealing with research misconduct allegations. While these scientists may have learned to communicate their research effectively in English, particularly when collaborating with other scientists or utilizing professional translation or editing services, this communication barrier can easily lead to misunderstandings, misinterpretations and unfair conclusions.
Even for a native English speaker, the research misconduct process can be daunting—often overwhelming and stressful. Additionally, it can be challenging for scientists to calmly and clearly articulate the circumstances indicating why the subject allegations are incorrect or why there was no intent sufficient to support a research misconduct finding. This difficulty is exacerbated when a respondent may speak English as a second or third language (or more).
The impact of culture on research misconduct proceedings is not limited to a language barrier. Scientists who were trained in other countries may have been taught practices that are acceptable there but outside the norm in the U.S. This should not be viewed as surprising or indicative of intent, particularly given that scientific standards and accepted practices are continuously evolving. Indeed, less than a decade ago, many scientific publications did not require splice lines be used to indicate where splicing had occurred in a figure (where splicing was otherwise appropriate); now, it would be considered unacceptable to engage in any splicing at all without an express indication in the figure.
Institutions reviewing research misconduct allegations should remind committee members that it is the institution’s burden to make findings of research misconduct by a preponderance of the evidence. This includes finding that a respondent possessed a level of intent sufficient to support those findings. In our experience, many committees take a more aggressive position than is warranted by the evidence when they do not adequately consider the impact of culture. Taken to an extreme, explicit and implicit biases against other cultures almost certainly led to the Trump Administration’s China Initiative, which targeted scientists with ties to China for civil, criminal, and administrative reviews. In many instances, this resulted in institutions fearing backlash from the federal government harshly punishing researchers for practices and relationships that had previously been approved. The punishments were frequently excessive, especially compared to similar conduct from a historical perspective.
Although it is incumbent upon institutions and their committees to make findings by a preponderance of the evidence and to keep in mind the impact that different cultures may have on interpreting a particular matter’s facts, the reality is that this burden is frequently shifted inappropriately to a respondent. In some circumstances, this is reasonable as it is a respondent’s burden to demonstrate any affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence, such as honest error. Frequently, however, the burden shift is unreasonable as a scientist may not be seeking to demonstrate honest error so much as struggling to clearly explain the circumstances (due to a language barrier) or seeking to show why the respondent viewed certain practices as acceptable (due to differing training or standards).
Rather than rushing to conclusions or assuming the worst of colleagues, members of committees reviewing research misconduct allegations should keep in mind the remedial purpose of the research misconduct process and the fact that it is meant to protect science rather than punish scientists. For their own part, respondents should keep in mind that their colleagues also face a burden by serving as committee members and refrain from responding emotionally. Particularly when language or other cultural differences may have played a role in the research subject to allegations, respondents should consider availing themselves of adequate support in the form of translators, counsel, and experts who can assist in communicating clear and reasonable explanations. As Martin Rees once said, “Science is a part of culture. Indeed, it is the only truly global culture because protons and proteins are the same all over the world, and it’s the one culture we can all share.” Diversity in science should be encouraged and protected, rather than punished, even when cultural differences may lead to issues that require correction or further education when U.S. institutions, publications, or funding are involved.
[View source.]
