this is due to an increase in dishonesty or foul play in the lab or simply closer attention to the issue, research misconduct is now squarely in the public eye.” In November 2015, Stanford University reported that two of
its academics had published a paper in the Journal of Language and Social Psychology that could help identify false research before it is published. “Even the best poker players have ‘tells’ that give away when they’re bluffing with a weak hand. Scien- tists who commit fraud have similar, but even more subtle, tells,” the university said, explaining that researchers had cracked the writing patterns of scientists who pass along falsi- fied data. The study expanded on “studies [that] have shown that liars generally tend to express more negative emotion terms and use fewer first-person pronouns. Fraudulent financial reports typi- cally display higher levels of linguistic obfuscation — phrasing that is meant to distract from or conceal the fake data — than accurate reports.” The researchers compared 253 retracted papers, mostly from biomedical journals, to unretracted papers on the same topics from the same journals and in the same publication years. “Scientists faking data know that they are committing a mis-
conduct and do not want to get caught,” David Markowitz, one of the researchers, said. “Therefore, one strategy to evade this may be to obscure parts of the paper. We suggest that language can be one of many variables to differentiate between fraudu- lent and genuine science. Fraudulent papers had about 60 more jargon-like words per paper compared to unretracted papers. This is a non-trivial amount.” China in particular has been victimized by scientific fraud
cases. “As China tries to take its seat at the top table of global academia, the criminal underworld has seized on a feature in its research system: the fact that research grants and promo- tions are awarded on the basis of the number of articles pub- lished, not on the quality of the original research. This has fos- tered an industry of plagiarism, invented research and fake journals that Wuhan University estimated in 2009 was worth US$150 million, a fivefold increase on just two years earlier,” The Economist reported in 2013. In 2015, Science reported “China’s main basic research
agency is cracking down on scientists who used fake peer reviews to publish papers in international journals, demanding that many return research funding. A separate Chinese scien- tific organization released the results of an investigation reveal- ing the role of China’s many unscrupulous paper brokers, which peddle ghostwritten or fraudulent papers, in the peer- review scandal. In some cases brokers suggested reviewers for their clients’ papers, provided email addresses to accounts they controlled, and then reviewed the authors’ work themselves. The National Natural Science Foundation is now revoking
funding from authors found to have committed egregious offenses. But critics say the measures don’t go far enough to stave off fraud.” One of the most egregious examples of science fraud oc-
curred in South Korea. On February 12, 2005, the government released a postage stamp that featured silhouettes of a para- lyzed man rising from a wheelchair, taking a tentative step, then leaping into the air in joy, and finally standing in an embrace with another person, presumably a loved one. The silhouettes, which were superimposed over an image
of growing stem cells, were accompanied by a simple but stun- ning statement: “Successful Establishment of Human Cloned Embryonic Stem Cells.” It offered incredible hope to countless millions of people in the world. The stamp celebrated the work of renowned scientist Dr.
Hwang Woo-Suk, who had published research in March 2004, claiming to have been the first person to create human embryonic stem cells cloned from the cells of 11 female
“Studies have shown that liars tend to express more negative emotion terms”
patients. If true, such cells could be transplanted into people suffering from degenerative diseases, among other conditions. Known as therapeutic cloning, the new cells could replace
damaged tissue without risk of rejection by the body’s immune system. His research offered the promise that paralyzed people would be able to walk, as well as a possible cure for Alzheimer’s disease and diabetes. Tragically, his research had been faked. In May 2006, Hwang was charged with embezzlement and
bioethics law violations. A Seoul University panel had con- cluded that Hwang had fabricated all his research related to the findings. Three years later, Hwang was sentenced to a two-and- a-half-year suspended sentence for his transgressions. He admitted to having faked his findings. Many people have a great respect for science, perhaps due to
a lack of understanding of the discipline or a sense that no one would wilfully falsify important findings. It’s apparent, however, that some people will. If an investigator becomes involved in a file that involves scientific findings, it’s important not to assume the research, if published, must be accurate and reliable. There are too many peer-reviewed examples to prove that is not always the case.
DAVID MALAMED, CPA, CA•IFA, CPA (ILL.), CCF, CFE, CFI, is a partner in forensic accounting at Grant Thornton LLP in Toronto
MARCH 2016 | CPA MAGAZINE | 57
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72