Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Second chances

The line between compliance and misconduct is finer than you might think.

There are many reasons why a research paper could be retracted, although the one that tends to dominate public discussion is research misconduct.

Similarly, there are many different definitions of research misconduct, but the one that tends to draw attention is deliberate deception and data fraud. That can help to explain why, when Nature ran a news story in January 2013 about a new course that would attempt to rehabilitate misconduct offenders, many of the online comments below the story were negative (see Nature 493, 147; 2013).

One response was typical: “If a scientist wilfully pollutes the scientific record with damaging, self-serving, purposeful lies, it is too late. If they have received funding for that fraud, I am still mystified as to why the granting agency does not seek to recoup their costs in court. Now, someone suggests we further train them on something that is obvious to any scientist with half a brain on their shoulders?”

More than three years on, the architects of the rehab course offer a progress report, which appears as a Comment article this week. More than three dozen researchers have been through its doors, and, according to the authors, most leave as better scientists than when they arrived.

Attendees do not include the high-profile data fraudsters whose offences are so serious that they are fired. By definition, researchers on the course are scientists who have been caught out but whom institutions want to keep.

Most of them had seen their research privileges suspended — with offences ranging from plagiarism and poor oversight to falling foul of the rules and regulations on animal welfare and informed consent. Despite the ‘research misconduct’ label, instances of conscious wrong-doing were rare. As one participant said: “Prior to this situation, I tried to follow the spirit of the law. Now I try to follow the letter of the law.”

Two points stand out. First, the typical character and personality of these scientists, and their knowledge and attitudes, were no different from those of you and your colleagues. Misconduct, the authors say, can be down to circumstance: “we believe that most researchers may be susceptible”. And second, those circumstances are becoming more common.

The most common cause of an offence was a lack of attention, prompted, among other things, by being too busy and trying to juggle too many projects. Sound like anyone you know?

Additional information

Tweet Follow @NatureNews

Related links

Related links

Related links in Nature Research

Misconduct: Lessons from researcher rehab 2016-Jun-08

‘Rehab’ helps errant researchers return to the lab 2013-Jan-08

The time is right to confront misconduct 2012-Aug-01

The time is right to confront misconduct 2012-Aug-01

Related external links

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Second chances. Nature 534, 152 (2016).

Download citation


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing