Is it just me, or do people in the US pay more attention to scientific misconduct than, say, Europeans? Maybe it’s not just me; a recent editorial by Xavier Bosch in BMJ argues that Europe lags significantly behind the US in monitoring scientific integrity.

In the US, many institutions and have departments in charge of handling allegations of misconduct. And failing this, the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) deals with cases of misconduct and fosters scientific honesty at a national level. Furthermore, the ORI is taken very seriously; if you’re facing the possibility of an ORI investigation, you are very likely to make sure your lab comes clean as soon as possible to try to keep their officers from paying you a visit.

In Europe, monitoring of scientific integrity is fragmented. Each country deals with the problem as they see fit, and the editorial does a good job of telling you what happens in what country. From my own experience, Spain is not an example of good practices. We once had an allegation of misconduct and could never get anybody from the university in question to get involved.

Bosch also puts forward some possible solutions to the problem. He seems to think that tackling it at a pan-European level would be the best way forward. This certainly makes sense if we consider that many European papers report the work of labs from different countries and that European funding promotes the formation of international networks.

The flip side of this is that European bureaucracy has a reputation for slowness and inefficiency. It is therefore easy to imagine an allegation of misconduct getting lost in the Kafkian labyrinths of the European Union’s offices in Brussels, slowly ripening like a good French wine, but turning into vinegar for those who made the accusation and those who are trying to reproduce a piece of work that may be flawed.

In other words, the creation of a “European ORI” would be of value only if its procedures are streamlined and is not hindered by European policy and National laws. If it isn’t given enough authority and autonomy, and is dragged down by bureaucratic procedures, then what sounds like a good idea in principle is also likely to turn into vinegar.

An alternative, also mentioned by Bosch, is the creation of ORIs in those countries in which research integirty is currently not monitored. This may sound less dramatic, but it strikes me as more useful, specifically in the context of the push by some journals (including ours) to encourage authors to disclose the specific contribution of each person in the author list to the work being reported. So, if there are problems with the confocal images, the Western blots or the statistical analysis, one can know without ambiguity who is responsible and who should be investigated by the local authorities.

Regardless of whether one prefers national or pan-European solutions, one thing’s for sure: Europe has a lot of catching up to do on this front.